Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75I - PH SUNFLOWER DESIGNATION CHANGEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 2019 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FILED BY LEGACY PARTNERS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2018-75; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-01; AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-01 TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD; LOW - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 226 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3,21 CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: 0:1:j:Zi11FASR, ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1� Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ee Z0 FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGIER RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Environmental Review No. 2018-75. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. - 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2019-01 for Specific Development No. 94 (SD 94). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At its regular meeting on May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission by a vote of 6:0 (Commissioner Alderete absent), adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75, General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to change the land use designation of the property 651 West Sunflower Avenue to Urban Neighborhood (UN), and Amendment Application No. 2019-01 to change the zoning district to Specific Development No. 94 (SD 94) to allow the construction of a 226 apartment unit development on a 3.59-Acre parcel. The property is currently under the Single -Family Residential (R1) zoning district and has a General Commercial (GC) land use 751-1 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 2 designation. The Planning Commission concurred with staffs recommendation as outlined and articulated in the attached Planning Commission staff report and resolution (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION Proiect Location and Site Description The site is currently improved with a 9,875-square foot, single -story church building with associated parking and landscaping. The building will be demolished as part of the proposed development, and the church has indicated a desire to relocate within Santa Ana. The church currently provides Taft Elementary School an access easement for student drop-off and pick-up, which has existed for several years. The entrance to the access easement is at the eastern most driveway and wraps around the site counter -clockwise to enter the school property and exit onto Sunflower Avenue at the westernmost driveway. The easement will remain after the site is developed with the proposed residential development. Table 1: Proiect Location Information Item - Information Project Address 651 West Sunflower Avenue Nearest Intersection Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street General Plan Designation Existing: Low -Density Residential LR-7 Proposed: Urban Neighborhood (UN) Zoning Designation Existing: Single -Family Residential R-1 Proposed: Specific Development No. 94 SD-94 Surrounding Land Uses North Elementary School East Duplexes South Multiple -Family Residential(City of Costa Mesa West Multiple -Family Residential Property Size 3.59 acres (156,337 square feet) Existing Site Development The site contains a one-story, 9,875-square foot church building with parking and landscaping. Applicable Zoning Code Sections Existing: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 3 (Single -Family Residence Proposed: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 26 (Specific Development) Entitlements SAMC Chapter 41, Article V, Division II (Amendments and Change to District Boundaries) Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to clear the site and develop a multiple -family residential development. The development will contain a five -story, 226-unit residential building with 452 parking spaces provided in a six -level parking structure with a partial subterranean level. No tandem parking spaces are proposed within the project. The top garage level will not project above the residential building, ensuring it is adequately screened from view by the entire development. No commercial or mixed -use component is proposed. 751-2 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 3 Unit Mix The unit mix will include studio, one -bedroom, and two -bedroom units. Each unit will contain laundry equipment, in -unit storage, and high -quality finishes. Parking is provided at two spaces per unit, inclusive of guest parking. Additional unit details are provided in Table 2, below. Table 2: Applicant Proposed Unit Mix and Unit Square Footage Unit Ty . e I Number of Units (%) S uare Foota `e of Units Studios 35 16% 603-613 One -Bedrooms 114 50% 613-751 Two -Bedrooms 77 34% 1,035-1,113 Total (density) 226 (63 units per acre) 100% - Design The building is designed with contemporary architectural design features. Elements such as stone veneer, multiple brick veneers, metal panels, imagery panels, metal balconies, flat and metal seamed roofs all assist in conveying a modern design. The parking structure is located to the northeast of the site with residential units wrapping around the east, south, and west of the structure in a semi -circle shape design. The community will be developed with extensive onsite amenities, including a central pool, barbecue, and plaza area. There are several designated open spaces for active and passive recreational activities. The eastern and southeastern portions of the site will contain a dog park, residential gardens, and outdoor dining area. The pool will be located in the western courtyard and will be surrounded by furniture and hardscape. Parking The project will provide 452 total parking spaces, which represents a gross rate of 2.0 spaces per residential unit including guest parking. The onsite parking is comparable to other projects of a similar scale in Santa Ana. Additional information on how the project compares to recently - approved, under -construction, or entitled projects is available in Table 4 of this report and in Exhibit 9 of the Planning Commission staff report. Site Access Following negotiations with the Santa Ana Unified School District, the property owner, and developer, the existing access easement for Taft Elementary School will remain but with modifications. A portion of the easement will be designed to provide circulation for both student pick-up and drop-off, fire service access, as well as residential onsite circulation. This easement was analyzed by staff and alternative designs were considered. However, after a site visit to the school site, it was identified that the rear school pick-up and drop-off area was minimally used. The observations and traffic study indicate minimal conflicts between these uses. The proposed configuration is the superior design to meet the needs of the development and the school and generates the least impact to the surrounding community. 751-3 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 4 The site will be serviced by three driveways. The easternmost driveway will provide access to the school. The driveway will split into two as it reaches the north property line. A new gate will limit access to the school, which will also be used for emergency vehicle access. The two driveways will merge into one as it reaches the western property line. This single driveway will exit onto Sunflower Avenue towards the west property line. The main vehicular entry to the site will be located in the center driveway approach. The main driveway will provide access to the parking garage through a formal entry and motor court design. A designated rideshare waiting area in the motor court will accommodate alternative transportation options for the tenants. There are several parking spaces located at the front for guests and future tenants. Housing Opportunity Ordinance Compliance In accordance with the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 41-1904), the developer has opted to pay in -lieu fees to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement. As part of the City of Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance, the developer will pay an estimated $2.81 million in - lieu fee to the City in order to allocate funds to other affordable residential unit developments in the city. Table 3: Housing Opportunity Fee Summary Habitable Square Footage linclusionamy HousingLfee Estimated Fee 187,565 $15 per square foot $2,813,475 "As measured from the exterior walls of the residential units. This calculation does not include exterior hallways, common areas, landscape, open space or exterior stairways Analysis of the Issues The applicant is requesting approval of entitlements to facilitate construction of a five -story multiple -family residential community adjacent to lower -intensity land uses. The project has been designed to reduce its impacts onto the surrounding community. An analysis of issues is presented in Table 4 on the following pages. Table 4: Issues Analysis Issue - Analyst— �= Scale The project has been designed to minimize its aesthetic impact onto the surrounding neighborhood. Courtyards in the southern and eastern portions of the project will minimize the perceived volume of the project from Sunflower Avenue and the duplex community to the east, respectively. The building's number of stories is scaled down on the east elevation, providing a step-down of the structure adjacent to the duplexes. The project is set back over 43 feet from the duplex community to the east and is buffered from the community with the two-way onsite drive aisle. The building's northern edge is set back 35 feet from the northern property line adjacent to Taft Elementary School, and a mural on the parking structure and extensive landscaping will minimize the impact of the development on the school. Shade and Shadow A shade and shadow analysis indicates that the duplexes to the east will experience partial shade during summer evenings at approximately 6:00 .m. 751-4 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 5 and during winter afternoons (at approximately 3:00 p.m.). There are no anticipated shade impacts to the north, south, or west. Density At 63 units per acre, the project would form a component of a tiered range of densities in the vicinity, with similar or more intense projects to the south across Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, and with lower -intensity multiple - family communities to the west and east. The project site does not border any single-family residential neighborhoods. Of the seven surveyed projects entitled, under construction, or completed in Santa Ana analyzed in Table 8 of exhibit 9 of the Planning Commission staff report, the project is the second -lowest in density, with the overall survey's range of 54 to 94 dwelling units per acre. Onsite Parking The City's parking requirements for multiple -family dwellings in SAMC Sec. 41- 1322 would require 586 parking spaces, which is 134 spaces more than the proposed 452 onsite parking spaces. The applicants submitted a parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) that was peer - reviewed by the Planning Division and Public Works Agency. The parking study indicates that the proposed development and its location near a major employment center and mixed -use shopping area would generate a demand of 379 parking spaces for the residents, which is 73 parking spaces less than the 452 proposed onsite spaces. This will result in a surplus of 73 parking spaces. The full study is included as Exhibit 10 in the Planning Commission staff report. Parking Structure The parking structure is designed with one-half level underground and six levels Design above ground. No portion of the parking structure will project above the residential buildings, ensuring that it is concealed from view from the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the north elevation of the parking structure will be concealed with murals and artwork where it faces Taft Elementary School, and additional landscaping will provide a buffer between the structure and the school. Compatibility The area in which the project is proposed contains a mix of multiple -family projects that are similar or more intense than the proposed development, duplexes, single-family homes, mixed -use developments, and commercial land uses. The project site does not abut any single-family properties and is similar in scale and architectural style with the residential developments to the south of the project site in the City of Costa Mesa. The project has been designed to avoid circulation impacts on adjacent neighborhoods by locating all three of its driveways on Sunflower Avenue. Residents and visitors to the site will not be able to access the development through any existing neighborhood streets. A comprehensive landscape plan has been designed to assist with the project's integration into the surrounding streetscape. The landscape plan anticipates the eventual widening of Sunflower Avenue to accommodate a bike lane; once the widening is complete, the ground -floor portion of the project along Sunflower Avenue will maintain privacy and landscaping. Regional Housing The Housing Element Annual Progress Report includes a summary of Santa Needs Allocation Ana's progress in meeting its share of the RHNA. There were a total of 1,372 (RHNA) building permits issued for new housing units in 2018, of which 42 percent or 577 housing units are affordable. With these new units, the City substantially exceeds the overall target for Santa Ana's RHNA 204-unit allocation, by over six times. The summary of new housing also exceeds by a multiplier of four the Cit 's 751-5 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 6 Issue_ aAnalysrs . _ ._ adopted Housing Element (2024-2021) goal of developing 405 RHNA units through identified housing opportunity sites. California Environmental Quality Act The applicant submitted a development proposal that requires the approval of several discretionary applications. Given the size and location of the project, as well as the proposed zoning and general plan modifications, environmental review is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After completion of the Initial Study for the project, it was determined that the proposed development requires preparation and certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The purpose of an MND is to identify the project's effects on the environment and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the MND examines environmental issues potentially affected by the project, with potentially significant impacts identified in the Noise, Transportation, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources categories. Among these categories, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to the "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" level for noise and vibration generated by construction activities and exposure of residential units adjacent to an arterial roadway, transportation impacts, and tribal cultural resources impact during construction. Mitigation measures will reduce vibration and noise impacts generated by construction activities, will reduce noise inside residential units stemming from the project's proximity to Sunflower Avenue, and will ensure archaeological specialists are available should any artifacts be uncovered during construction. The MND's traffic study indicates that two nearby intersections, Sunflower Avenue/Main Street and Flower Street/MacArthur Boulevard, will experience Level of Service (LOS) reductions from "D" to "E" with or without the project in Year 2040 traffic conditions. To address transportation impacts, a proposed mitigation measure requires the developer to modify an existing traffic signal at the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Main Street to provide a southbound right -turn overlap phase to improve intersection efficiencies. General Plan Amendment To allow for the construction of a multiple -family residential development on this parcel, a General Plan amendment is required. Currently, the land use designation for this site is Low - Density Residential (LR-7), which applies to areas that are predominately developed with single- family residential. This project will require an amendment to the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of the site to Urban Neighborhood (UN) with a density of 63 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.80. The project is consistent with the UN land use designation, which applies primarily to residential or mixed -use areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools and small parks. The existing intensity standard found in the General Plan for the UN land use ranges from a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 3.0 with the residential density based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning development standards; the proposed development is consistent with this range and is consistent with the intent, character 751-6 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 7 and intensity standards of the LIN land use designation. Additional comparative information is provided in Exhibit 11 attached to this staff report. If approved, the project will support several goals and policies of the Housing Element. The project is consistent with Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. In addition, the project supports Goal 4, to provide adequate rental supportive services. Amendment Application The subject site has Single -Family Residence (R-1) zoning district. Approval of an amendment application to change the zoning district is required for the project. The Specific Development (SD) designation allows flexibility of the uses and development standards that are tailored to a unique and specific project. If the zone change is approved, a series of site -specific objectives, policies and development standards will be used to guide the development of the proposed project such as setbacks, parking and height to allow the exclusive entitlement of the permanent supportive housing project. The SD document has been drafted to be consistent with the project and prohibits future modifications to alter the site, including enlarging or reducing the size of the project. The zone change needs to be approved in conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment in order for the project to be consistent with the General Plan. Table 5 below contains a narrative of the Specific Development's proposed development standards. Table 5: Specific Development 94 — Maior Development Standards Narrative IStanda d 0 0 SWM IDescription Floor Area Ratio 1.80 FAR Minimum Lot Area 3.0 Acres Minimum Street 550 Feet Frontage Maximum Building 75 Feet Height Minimum Building As per approved plans; minimum 5 feet from Sunflower Avenue, Minimum 20 Setbacks feet from the interior side property line; Minimum 30 feet from the rear property line Onsite Parking Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per unit, inclusive of guest parking Onsite Open Space Minimum 200 square feet onsite per each residential unit; Minimum 15 and Landscaping percent open space onsite for courtyards, common area amenities, perimeter plaza, and perimeter open sace areas. Public Art One-half percent (0.5%) of the building's valuation, inclusive of the residential and parking structure components. 751-7 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 8 Table 6: CEQA. Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Community Outreach CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Communi ' Outreach . CEQA CEQA Type Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Review No. 2018-75. No areas of significant and unavoidable impact were determined from the construction or operation of the proposed project (Exhibit 11 of the Planning Commission staff report). The project will require adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which contains mitigation measures to address hazards and hazardous materials, noise stemming from construction and proximity to a major roadway, traffic impacts to the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower Avenue, and tribal resources. Public Notification A notice of intent and final MND was circulated to interested parties on March 19, 2019 and published in the Orange County Register on March 19, 2019. The final MND was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the project web a e on the City's website. Public Notification,, & Community Outreach _.. Required A community meeting was held on June 6, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at the Four Square Measures Church (subject site) in accordance with the provisions of the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Two members of the public and Planning Division staff attended. The applicant provided all the required information to the City after the meeting. Notification by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site on May 24, 2019. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Register on May 24, 2019. Additional The applicant has met with the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association several Measures times to discuss the proposed development and to address impacts that could result from the development. The applicants and Sandpointe representatives met in March 2018 and again in March 2019 to review changes to the project, including increasing the onsite parking to 2.0 spaces per unit and reducing the number of units from 240 to the presently -proposed 226. The applicant has also entered into a separate agreement with the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association to contribute funds to develop a website for the Neighborhood Association, to allow use of the proposed development's business and conference center facilities for the Neighborhood Association's board meetings, provide security patrols for the neighborhood, and to contribute funds toward installing lighting for the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association entry monument on MacArthur Boulevard. The City received two letters of support for the project. The first letter was issued by Diane Pritchett on behalf of the South Coast Metro Alliance; the second was issued by Emily Benedick on behalf of the Lakes Costa Mesa Association. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #3 - Objective #2 (create new opportunities for business/job growth development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies). Economic Development, and encourage private 751-8 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, AA No. 2019-01 June 4, 2019 Page 9 FISCAL IMPACT The proposed development is estimated to generate approximately $7,000,000 in City permit and school district fees and will create 683 full and part-time jobs during construction and 9 permanent jobs. Following development, the improvements to the site are expected to result in an annual property tax revenue of $174,400 and annual sales tax revenues of $48,789. The annual sales tax revenue is forecast based on the community's residents living in close proximity to one of the City's strongest commercial corridors on South Bristol Street. Based on a comprehensive review of taxes and fees generated by the development and City expenses resulting from the development, the net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $9,869,000 over a 25-year period. Minh Thai Executive Director Planning and Building Agency IO:la S:RFCA\2019\06-04-19\Legacy Sunflower\PBA-GPA 2019-01 AA 2019-01 RFCA Version Zoo Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution 2. MND and Resolution 3. General Plan Amendment Resolution 4. Amendment Application Ordinance 751-9 751-10 EXHIBIT 1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 13, 2019 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO.2018-75 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2019-01 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO.2019-01 TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF A 226-UNIT MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE (STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 5, 3; 5,4) Ivan Orozco Prepared by All Pezeshkpour, AICP Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Planning Mana er Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75, General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01, and Amendment Application No. 2019-01 for Specific Development No. 94 (SD 94). Executive Summary Andrea Maloney, representing Legacy Partners, LLC, is requesting approval of several entitlements to facilitate the development of a 226-unit multiple -family housing community at 651 West Sunflower Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a general plan amendment to redesignate the property from Low -Density Residential (LR-7) to Urban Neighborhood (UN), and an amendment application to rezone the property from Single -Family Residential (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94). Staff is recommending approval of the project as the proposed development is consistent with similar projects in the vicinity and because the project has been designed to minimize or eliminate impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. The subject project was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration at the April 22, 2019 meeting. After opening the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to May 13, 2019 to provide the City additional time to review correspondence received addressing the environmental review and public notification for the project. Project Location and Site Description The subject site is a 3.59-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street. Surrounding properties Include Taft Elementary School to the north, duplexes to the 751-11 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 2 east, multiple -family residential developments to the south across Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, and multiple -family residential developments to the west across Flower Street. A regional drainage channel abuts the site to the west, and a public art piece is currently installed southwest of the site on an adjacent parcel. The site is currently improved with a 9,875-square foot, single -story church building with associated parking and landscaping. The building will be demolished as part of the proposed development, and the church has indicated a desire to relocate within Santa Ana. The church currently provides Taft Elementary School an access easement for student drop-off and pick-up, which has existed for several years. The entrance to the access easement is at the eastern most driveway and wraps around the site counter -clockwise to enter the school property and exit onto Sunflower Avenue at the westernmost driveway. The easement will remain after the site is developed with the proposed residential development. Table 1: Protect Location Information Item Information Project Address 651 West Sunflower Avenue Nearest Intersection Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street General Plan Designation Existing: Low -Density Residential LR-7 Proposed: Urban Neighborhood (UN) Zoning Designation Existing: Single -Family Residential R-1 Proposed: Specific Development No. 94 SD-94 Surrounding Land Uses North Elementary School East Duplexes South Multiple -Family Residential(City of Costa Mesa West Multi le-Famil Residential Property Size 3.59 acres (156,337 square feet) Existing Site Development The site contains a one-story, 9,875-square foot church building with parking and landscaping. Applicable Zoning Code Sections Existing: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 3 (Single -Family Residence Proposed: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 26 (Specific Development) Entitlements SAMC Chapter 41, Article V, Division II (Amendments and Change to District Boundaries) Protect Background and Chronoloav City records indicate that the site was developed with a church building with Sunday school services in 1968. Several building permits have been issued through the years for minor tenant improvements. Most of the improvements to the site were related to electrical upgrades and site improvements for ADA accessibility. 751-12 ER No. 2018-75, May 13, 2019 Page 3 GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower The Sound Four Square church has indicated that attendance to the church services has lessened through the years. Looking at alternatives for the site, the church began communication with Legacy Partners to identify a possible development of the site. As part of the sale agreementforthe property, the Four Square church administration will be allocated ownership rights and assistance for relocation in Santa Ana. Early discussions indicate that the church is seeking to relocate closer to Downtown Santa Ana. Protect Description The applicant is proposing to clear the site and develop a multiple -family residential development. The development will contain a five -story, 226-unit residential building with 452 parking spaces provided in a six -level parking structure with a partial subterranean level. No tandem parking spaces are proposed within the project. The top garage level will not project above the residential building, ensuring it is adequately screened from view by the entire development. No commercial or mixed -use component is proposed. Unit Mix The unit mix will include studio, one -bedroom, and two -bedroom units. Each unit will contain laundry equipment, in -unit storage, and high -quality finishes. Parking is provided at two spaces per unit, inclusive of guest parking. Additional unit details are provided in Table 2, below. Table 2: Applicant Proposed Unit Mix and Unit Square Footage Unit Type ' Number of Units % S uare:Foota a 0 Units . Studios 35 16% 603-613 One -Bedrooms 114 50% 613-751 Two -Bedrooms 77 34% 1,035-1,113 Total(density) 226 63 units per acre 100% - Design The building is designed with contemporary architectural design features. Elements such as stone veneer, multiple brick veneers, metal panels, imagery panels, metal balconies, flat and metal seamed roofs all assist in conveying a modem design. The parking structure is located to the northeast of the site with residential units wrapping around the east, south, and west of the structure in a semi -circle shape design. The community will be developed with extensive onsite amenities, including a central pool, barbecue, and plaza area. There are several designated open spaces surrounding the site for active and passive recreational activities. The eastern and southeastern portions of the site will contain a dog park, residential gardens, and outdoor dining area. The pool will be located in the western courtyard and will be surrounded by furniture and hardscape. 751-13 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 4 Parking The project will provide 452 total parking spaces, which represents a gross rate of 2.0 spaces per residential unit. This parking total allows each bedroom to be assigned one full parking space, for a total of 303 parking spaces. The project will also provide 57 guest parking spaces, at a rate of 0.25 parking spaces per unit. A total of 92 extra parking spaces will be available for use by residents and/or guests. The onsite parking is comparable to other projects of a similar scale in Santa Ana. Additional information on how the project compares to recently -approved, under - construction, or entitled projects is available in Table 4 of this report and in Table 7 of Attachment 11. Site Access Following negotiations with the Santa Ana Unified School District, the property owner, and developer, the existing access easement for Taft Elementary School will remain but with modifications. A portion of the easement will be designed to provide circulation for both student pick-up and drop-off, fire service access, as well as residential onsite circulation. This easement was analyzed by staff and alternative designs were considered. However, after a site visit to the school site, It was identified that the rear school pick-up and drop-off area was minimally used. The observations and traffic study Indicate minimal conflicts between these uses. The proposed configuration is the superior design to meet the needs of the development and the school and generates the least impact to the surrounding community. The site will be serviced by three driveways. The easternmost driveway will provide access to the school. The driveway will split into two as it reaches the north property line. A new gate will limit access to the school, which will also be used for emergency vehicle access. The two driveways will merge into one as it reaches the western property line. This single driveway will exit onto Sunflower Avenue towards the west property line. The main vehicular entry to the site will be located In the center driveway approach. The main driveway will provide access to the parking garage through a formal entry and motor court design. A designated rideshare waiting area in the motor court will accommodate alternative transportation options for the tenants. There are several parking spaces located at the front for guests and future tenants. In accordance with the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 41-1904), the developer has opted to pay in -lieu fees to satisfy the incluslonary housing requirement. As part of the City of Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance, the developer will pay an estimated $2.81 million in - lieu fee to the City in order to allocate funds to other affordable residential unit developments in the city. Table 3: Housing Opportunity Fee Summary Habitable Square Footage I Incluslonary Housing Fee I Estimated Fee 187,565 1 $15 Der square foot I $2 813 475 As measured from the exterior walls of the residential units. This calculation does not include exterior hallwavc �vmu,vu alaaJ, Ia11ub[ pe, open space or exterior stairways 751-14 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 5 Analysis of the Issues The applicant is requesting approval of entitlements to facilitate construction of a five -story multiple -family residential community adjacent to lower -intensity land uses. The project has been designed to reduce its impacts onto the surrounding community. An analysis of issues is presented In Table 4 on the following pages. Table 4: Issues Analysis Issue A.ralysis Scale The project has been designed to minimize its aesthetic impact onto the surrounding neighborhood. Courtyards in the southern and eastern portions of the project will minimize the perceived volume of the project from Sunflower Avenue and the duplex community to the east, respectively. In addition, the building's number of stories is scaled on the east elevation, providing a step- down of the structure adjacent to the duplexes. Moreover, the project is set back over 43 feet from the duplex community to the east and is buffered from the community with the two-way onsite drive aisle. The building's northern edge is set back 35 feet from the northern property line adjacent to Taft Elementary School, and a mural on the parking structure and extensive landscaping will minimize the impact of the development on the school. Finally, a shade and shadow analysis indicates that the duplexes will experiences partial shade during summer evenings (at approximately 6:00 p.m.) and during winter afternoons (at approximately 3:00 p.m.). There are no anticipated shade impacts to the north, south, or west. Density The project proposes a density of 63 units per acre. As proposed, the project would form a component of a tiered range of densities in the vicinity, with similar or more intense projects to the south across Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, and with lower -intensity multiple -family communities to the west and east. The project site does not border any single-family residential neighborhoods. Of the seven surveyed projects entitled, under construction, or completed in Santa Ana analyzed in Table 8 of Attachment 11 of this report, the project is the second -lowest in density, with the overall survey's range of 54 to 94 dwelling units per acre. Onsite Parking The City's parking requirements for multiple -family dwellings in SAMC Sec. 41- 1322 would require 586 parking spaces, which is 134 spaces more than the proposed 452 onsite parking spaces. The applicants submitted a parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) that was peer - reviewed by the Planning Division and Public Works Agency. The parking study indicates that the proposed development and its location near a major employment center and mixed -use shopping area would generate a demand of 379 parking spaces for the residents, which is 73 parking spaces less than the 452 proposed onsite spaces. This will result in a surplus of 73 parking spaces_ . - The full study is included as Exhibit 12 with -this staff report. Parking Structure The parking structure is designed with one-half level underground and six levels Design above ground. No portion of the parking structure will project above the residential buildings, ensuring that it is concealed from view from the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the north elevation of the parking structure will be concealed with murals and artwork where it faces Taft 751-15 ER No. 2018-75, May 13, 2019 Page 6 GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower Issue Analysis Elementary School, and additional landscaping will provide a buffer between the structure and the school. Compatibility The area in which the project is proposed contains a mix of multiple -family projects that are similar or more intense than the proposed development, duplexes, single-family homes, mixed -use developments, and commercial land uses. The project site does not abut any single-family properties and is similar in scale and architectural style with the residential developments to the south of the project site in the City of Costa Mesa. The project has been designed to avoid circulation impacts on adjacent neighborhoods by locating all three of its driveways on Sunflower Avenue. Residents and visitors to the site will not be able to access the development through any existing neighborhood streets. A comprehensive landscape plan has been designed to assist with the project's integration into the surrounding streetscape. The landscape plan anticipates the eventual widening of Sunflower Avenue to accommodate a bike lane; once the widening is complete, the ground -floor portion of the project along Sunflower Avenue will maintain privacy and landscaping. Regional Housing The Housing Element Annual Progress Report includes a summary of Santa Needs Allocation Ana's progress in meeting its share of the RHNA. There were a total of 1,372 (RHNA) building permits issued for new housing units in 2018, of which 42 percent or 577 housing units are affordable. With these new units, the City substantially exceeds the overall target for Santa Ana's RHNA 204-unit allocation, by over six times. The summary of new housing also exceeds by a multiplier of four the City's adopted Housing Element (2024-2021) goal of developing 405 RHNA units through identified housing opportunity sites. California Environmental Quality Act The applicant submitted a development proposal that requires the approval of several discretionary applications. Given the size and location of the project, as well as the proposed zoning and general plan modifications, environmental review is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After completion of the Initial Study for the project, it was determined that the proposed development requires preparation and certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The purpose of an MND is to identify the project's effects on the environment and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the MND examines environmental issues potentially affected by the project, with potentially significant impacts identified in the Noise, Transportation, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources categories. Among these categories, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to the "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" level for noise and vibration generated by construction activities and exposure of residential units adjacent to an arterial roadway, transportation impacts, and tribal cultural resources impact during construction. Mitigation measures will reduce vibration and noise impacts generated by construction activities, will reduce noise Inside residential units stemming from the project's proximity to Sunflower Avenue, and will ensure archaeological specialists are available should any artifacts be uncovered during construction. 751-16 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 7 The MND's traffic study indicates that two nearby intersections, Sunflower Avenue/Main Street and Flower Street/MacArthur Boulevard, will experience Level of Service (LOS) reductions from "D" to "E" with or without the project in Year 2040 traffic conditions. To address transportation impacts, a proposed mitigation measure requires the developer to modify an existing traffic signal at the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Main Street to provide a southbound right -turn overlap phase to improve intersection efficiencies. General Plan Amendment To allow for the construction of a multiple -family residential development on this parcel, a general plan amendment is required. Currently, the land use designation for this site is Low -Density Residential (LR-7), which applies to areas that are predominately developed with single-family residential. This project will require an amendment to the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of the site to Urban Neighborhood (UN) with a density of 63 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.80. The project is consistent with the UN land use designation, which applies primarily to residential or mixed -use areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools and small parks. The existing intensity standard found in the General Plan for the UN land use ranges from a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 3.0 with the residential density based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning development standards; the proposed development is consistent with this range and is consistent with the intent, character and intensity standards of the UN land use designation. Additional comparative information Is provided in Exhibit 11 attached to this staff report. If approved, the project will support several goals and policies of the Housing Element. The project is consistent with Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. In addition, the project supports Goal 4, to provide adequate rental supportive services. Amendment Application The subject site has Single -Family Residence (R-1) zoning district. Approval of an amendment application to change the zoning district is required for the project. The Specific Development (SD) designation allows flexibility of the uses and development standards that are tailored to a unique and specific project. If the zone change is approved, a series of site -specific objectives, policies and development standards will be used to guide the development of the proposed project such as setbacks, parking and height to allow the exclusive entitlement of the permanent supportive housing project. The SD document has been drafted to be consistent with the project and prohibits future modifications to alter the site, including enlarging or reducing the size of the project. The zone change needs to be approved in conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment in order for the project to be consistent with the General Plan. Table 5 below contains a narrative of the Specific Development's proposed development standards. 751-17 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 8 Table 5: Specific Development 94 — Maior Development Standards Narrative Standard 'Description Floor Area Ratio FAR 1.80 Minimum Lot Area 3.0 Acres Minimum Street 550 Feet Frontage Maximum Building 75 Feet Height Minimum Building As per approved plans; minimum 5 feet from Sunflower Avenue, Minimum 20 Setbacks feet from the interior side property line; Minimum 30 feet from the rear property line Onsite Parking Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per unit, inclusive of quest parking Onsite Open Space Minimum 200 square feet onsite per each residential unit; Minimum 15 percent and Landscaping open space onsite for courtyards, common area amenities, perimeter plaza, and perimeter open sace areas. Public Art One-half percent (0.5%) of the building's valuation, inclusive of the residential and parkinq structure components. Economic Analysis The proposed development is estimated to generate approximately $7,000,000 in City permit and school district fees and will create 683 full and part-time jobs during construction and 9 permanent jobs. Following development, the improvements to the site are expected to result in an annual property tax revenue of $174,400 and annual sales tax revenues of $48,789. The annual sales tax revenue is forecast based on the community's residents living in close proximity to one of the City's strongest commercial corridors on South Bristol Street. Based on a comprehensive review of taxes and fees generated by the development and City expenses resulting from the development, the net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $9,869,000 over a 25-year period. Table 6: CEQA. Strategic Plan Alignment. and Public Notification & Community Outreach CEQA,.Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Communi Outreach• CEQA -No. CEQA Type Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Review 2018-75. No areas of significant and unavoidable impact were determined from the construction or operation of the proposed project (Exhibit 13). The project will require adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which contains mitigation measures to address hazards and hazardous materials, noise stemming from construction and proximity to a major roadway, traffic impacts to the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower Avenue, and tribal resources. Public Notification A notice of intent and final MND was circulated to interested parties on March 19, 2019 and published in the Orange County Register on March 19. 2019. The final MND was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the project web a e on the Cit 's website. Strategic Plan'Ali nment 751-18 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 9 CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Community Outreach Goal(s), Policy or Approval of this item supports Goal No. 3 Economic Development, Policies Objective No. 2 (Create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies), and Goal No. 5 Community Health, Livability, Engagement and Sustainability, Objective No. 3 (Facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserve and improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods) and Objective No. 4 (Support neighborhood vitality and livability). Public Notification & Community Outreach Required A community meeting was held on June 6, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at the Four Square Measures Church (subject site) in accordance with the provisions of the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Two members of the public and Planning Division staff attended. The applicant provided all the required information to the City after the meeting. A public noticed was posted on the project site on April 11, 2019. Notification by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site on April 11. 2019. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Register on April 12, 2019. Additional The applicant has met with the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association several Measures times to discuss the proposed development and to address impacts that could result from the development. The applicants and Sandpointe representatives met in March 2018 and again in March 2019 to review changes to the project, including increasing the onsite parking to 2.0 spaces per unit and reducing the number of units from 240 to the presently -proposed 226. The applicant has also entered Into a separate agreement with the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association to contribute funds to develop a website for the Neighborhood Association, to allow use of the proposed development's business and conference center facilities for the Neighborhood Association's board meetings, provide security patrols for the neighborhood, and to contribute funds toward installing lighting for the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association entry monument on MacArthur Boulevard. The City received two letters of support for the project. The first letter was issued by Diane Pritchett on behalf of the South Coast Metro Alliance; the second was Issued by Emily Benedick on behalf of the Lakes Costa Mesa Association. Conclusion Based on the analysis in this report, staff is supportive of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 and Amendment Application No. 2019-01 for the site as redevelopment of the site with a residential community provides additional housing in a prime location that is accessible to retail and employment opportunities with multimodal transportation options. The project will also enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability through the increase in property tax values as well as an increase in sales tax generated from the residents who will live in close proximity to one of the City's largest commercial districts. 751-19 ER No. 2018-75, GPA No. 2019-01, & AA No. 2019-01 — Legacy Sunflower May 13, 2019 Page 10 Ivan Orozco Assistant Planner AP/IO:sb &Planning Commission/2919l5-13.191Legacy Sunflower All Pezeshkpour, / ICP Senior Planner Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View 3. Site Photos 4. Overall Site Plan 5. Floor Plans 6. Building Elevations 7. Renderings 8. Landscape Plan 9. Project Density and Parking Comparisons 10. Parking Study 11. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Technical Appendices 751-20 EXHIBIT 1 751-21 LS 5.13.19 RESOLUTION NO.2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-75) AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN NO. 2019-01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD; AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-01 TO REDESIGNATE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Legacy Partners (Applicant) is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to amend the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR-7) to Urban Neighborhood (UN) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community on the 3.59- acre property. Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City, which may be amended by the City Council from time to time. B. Applicant is requesting approval of Amendment Application No. 2019-01 pursuant to Section 41-659 et seq. (Division 2 of Article V of Chapter 41) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to redesignate the subject property from Single -Family Residence (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94). C. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The public hearing was opened, public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2019. D. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a 751-22 duly noticed public hearing. During its deliberations, all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the Planning Commission considered the environmental analysis and mitigation measures described in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75. E. The Planning Commission has reviewed the information presented in the Request for Planning Commission Action staff report dated May 13, 2019, including any and all attachments therein. F. As part of the recommended action, the City Council will adopt separate resolutions for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75; for General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01; and an ordinance for Amendment Application No. 2019-01 (Attachments 1, 2, and 3). Section 2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75, prepared with respect to this project. The MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included as Attachment 13 to the Request for Planning Commission Action for the project dated May 13, 2019. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(a), the Planning Commission considered the analysis and conclusion of the MND as well as the mitigations outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission recommends, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, that the City Council determine that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis of this review, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment and the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Section 3. This Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018- 75 and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and direct that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01; and adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2019-01 to facilitate construction of the subject development. Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all 751-23 claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney Mark McLoughlin Chairperson 751-24 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on May 13, 2019. Date: Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana 751-25 ATTACHMENT A OF EXHIBIT 1 751-26 LS 5.13.19 RESOLUTION NO.2019-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-75 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-01 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City. B. On February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time. C. Legacy Partners (Applicant) is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to amend the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban Neighborhood (UN) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community on the 3.59- acre property. D. On January 2, 2019, pursuant to Senate Bill 18, the City mailed consultation letters to all tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Tribal Consultation List. The consultation period has since concluded. E. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The item was continued to the May 13, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, however, the item was opened for public comment. F. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and approving General Plan Amendment No. 201MI. G. On June 4, 2019, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard, the project was fully considered, and all other legal 751-27 prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution occurred. H. General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 has been filed to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation of the property at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban Neighborhood (UN). Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75, prepared with respect to this project. The MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included as Exhibit A in Resolution No. 2019- and is posted to the City's website at: https://www.ci.santa- ana. ca. us/sites/defau IUfiles/pb/planning/Legacy%20S unflower/Legacy%20S unflower%2 OMND.pdf and is also on file with the Planning and Building Agency. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75, prepared with respect to this project and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, an MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that with the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program described in Exhibit A, the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the MND and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed Project will have the potential for any significant adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed Project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. However, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees in conjunction with this project is at the discretion of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and land use programs specified In the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons. 1. The existing General Plan land use designations for the project site at 651 West Sunflower Avenue is Low -Density Residential (LR), which 751-28 allows single-family homes at a density up to seven (7) units per acre. In order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community with a floor area ratio of 1.81, the land use designation needs to be changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN), which allows for a mix of residential uses and housing types, such as low- to mid -rise multiple family, townhouses, single family dwellings; with some opportunities for live -work, neighborhood serving retail and service, public space and use, and other amenities with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 to 3.0. 2. The proposed community at 651 West Sunflower Avenue supports several goals and policies of the General Plan. The project is consistent with: I. Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster. an inclusive community. The project will pay approximately $2,813,475 in in -lieu fees pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 1904 to provide additional funds for future affordable housing projects, which supports Housing Element Goal 3: Increased opportunities for low and moderate income individuals and families to find quality housing opportunities and afford a greater choice of rental or homeownership opportunities. Further, the project is consistent with several Housing Element policies; Policy HE-2.3 to encourage construction of rental housing for the city's residents and workforce; and Policy HE- 3.4 to support the provision of employment training, childcare services, rental assistance, youth services, and other community services that enable households to attain the greatest level of self-sufficiency and independence. II. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1, to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. The project is consistent with LU policies 1.2, to maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City; LU policies 4.3 and 4.4, to support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits and that promote the Cites image as a regional activity center; and LU policies 5.5 and 5.7, to encourage development that is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses and that does not exceed available infrastructure capacity. III. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6, to reduce residential overcrowding. The project is In close proximity to major transit corridors on Sunflower Avenue and Main and Bristol streets, as well as the San Diego (1-405) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) freeways. The project site is located in an area with high development intensities near the Bristol Street commercial and office corridor in Santa Ana and near a large employment 751-29 center across Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. The multiple -family residential development will complement the mid -rise residential communities and high-rise office towers nearby and supports an already -thriving mixed use portion of the City of Santa Ana. iv. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. The project is consistent with LID policies 1.1 and 1.11, having been designed with high -quality design, materials, finishes, and construction, and integration with visual and physical links among districts, nodes, significant sites, landmarks, and other points of interest. The project will maintain and enhance an existing plaza to the southwest of the project site and will retain a public art installation already in place. The project has been designed with an enduring, contemporary architectural style that complements the existing developments in the vicinity while reducing aesthetic and physical impacts to surrounding land uses. The project site is located on a major arterial roadway and is adjacent to gateways into the City at Main Street/Sunflower Avenue and Bristol Street/Sunflower Avenue, adjacent to the cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine. The City Council has weighed and balanced the General Plan's policies, both new and old, and has determined that based upon this balancing that General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 is consistent with the purpose of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, Inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. The amendments to the Land Use Element are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 4 below. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS- (AA No. 2019-01) to rezone the property from Single -Family Residential (R- 1) to Specific Development (SD) No. 94 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. 751-30 Section 5. The Applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any environmental review or approval, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 6. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Planning and Building Agency shall give direct notice to the Applicant of the City Council's decisions and these findings. ADOPTED this 4t' day of June 2019. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Norma Mitre, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-XX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , 2019. 751-31 Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana EXHIBIT A Draft Land_Use Element Changes 751-32 ATTACHMENT B OF EXHIBIT 1 751-33 RESOLUTION NO.2019-xx LS 5.13.19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-75 AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-01 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Legacy Partners (Applicant) is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to amend the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban Neighborhood (UN) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community on the 3.59- acre property. B. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., as amended, require the evaluation of environmental impacts in connection with proposals for discretionary projects. C. Pursuant to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study relative to the proposed project concluded that implementation of the project could result In potentially significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less -than -significant level. D. The City of Santa Ana prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75 for the proposed project which reflects the City's independent judgement and analysis as lead agency for the project. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have a less than significant environmental Impact with implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are included to address potential impacts on construction -related noise and vibrations, and traffic. E. On March 18, 2019, Notice of Intent to adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated 751-34 Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 was published in the OC Register newspaper, circulated to interested agencies, organizations and parties, and the Orange County Clerk Recorder. F. The documents related to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were made available for a 20-day public review and comment period at the Santa Ana City Hall, the Main Library, and on the project webpage on the City's website. G. Comments received were addressed in a Response to Comments document that provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid as disclosed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. H. The mitigation measures set forth in Mitigated Negative Declaration are fully enforceable and will be implemented using the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The item was continued to the May 13, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, however, the item was opened for public comment. J. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. During its deliberations, the Planning Commission considered the environmental analysis and mitigation measures described in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. K. On June 4, 2019, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard, the project was fully considered, and all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution occurred. Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75, prepared with respect to this project. The MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached herein as Exhibit A. The City Council has, as a result of Its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that 751-35 the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment and the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, an MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the MND and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed Project will have the potential for any significant adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed Project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. However, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees in conjunction with this project is at the discretion of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; makes implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project. and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any significant adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. However, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees in conjunction with this project is at the discretion of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 751-36 Section 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as well as all supporting documents are on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 6. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 7. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Planning and Building Agency shall give direct notice to the Applicant of the City Council's decisions and these findings. ADOPTED this _ day of 2019. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 751-37 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, NORMA MITRE, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on .2019. Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 751-38 EXHIBIT A Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program htins://N"vw.santa-ana orJsites/default/file,s/r)b/plannine/Le-,icy°/ 2OSunflower/Final°/ 20M MRPydf 751-39 ATTACHMENT C OF EXHIBIT 1 751-40 5.13.19 LS ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-01 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 (SD-94) (AA NO. 2019-01) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 (SD-94) FOR SAID PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Amendment Application No. 2019-01 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to change the zoning designation of the parcel located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Single -Family Residence (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94) zoning designation described in Exhibit A. General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 was filed concurrently with the Amendment Application for consistency with the General Plan. B. The zoning designation of the Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94) would facilitate the development of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community with private community space and supportive service offices and bring the rezoned property into consistency with the General Plan land use designation of Urban Neighborhood (UN). C. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The item was continued to the May 13, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, however, the item was opened for public comment. D. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2019-01 which is consistent with the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. D. The City Council has reviewed applicable general plan policies and has determined that this proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the General Plan. E. The City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2019. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 of 3 751-41 F. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented In the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019 accompanying this matter. G. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2019- 01 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, thus changing the zoning district is found to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the real property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Single -Family Residence (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94), (AA No. 2019-01). Amended Sectional District Map number 36-5-10 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. This recommendation is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Review No. 2018- 75 meets all the requirements of CEQA. Section 4. This ordinance shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2019- (Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01) and Ordinance No. 2019- (Amendment Application No. 2019-01) are adopted and become effective. If either resolution and/or ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 of 3 751-42 Section 6. The Applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any environmental review or approval, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. ADOPTED this _ day of , 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Miguel A. Pulido Mayor CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, NORMA MITRE, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2019 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 of 3 751-43 EXHIBIT 2 751-44 3/2612019 GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 �- 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE LEGACY AT SUNFLOWERA e I ry fig¢ I F1 "j,� f La + I , LS Rol s£ t l I �F,,1 " r �? �r l . Santa Ana Boundary , - F❑ - Zoning ftfm �� a.�.,,....n. Ej Q [— i __ f a � -�( - VICINITY ZONING AND AERIAL VIEW 2019 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved. apps.spalialstream.coMproducUoNtlashboard/8/g/o/CurrentBuitd/htm'7St2.45 1!1 EXHIBIT 3 751-46 W i F u SITE PHOTOS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO.2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-47 EXHIBIT 4 751-48 13NNVH3IH130 VNV V1NV8 -- 1332l15 213N;O13 0 OVERALL SITE PLAN 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO.2019-01 751-49 EXHIBIT 5 751-50 77 F . r777 I T, Tr FLOOR PLANS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-51 FLOOR PLANS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-51 EXHIBIT 6 751-52 4 _SOUTH 41 Ij BUILDING ELEVATIONS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-53 EXHIBIT 7 751-54 RENDERINGS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO. 2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-55 r wwo G• 1 .r low - RENDERINGS 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO.2019-01, AA NO.2019-01 751-56 EXHIBIT 8 751-57 LANDSCAPE PLAN 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE GPA NO.2019-01, AA NO. 2019-01 751-58 EXHIBIT 9 751-59 Table 7: Santa Ana Multi -Family Project Parking Supply and Ratio Parking Parking Ratio Tandem.Parking Project Name Units Total I Residential Guest Total Residential Number Percent The Marke 300 660 600 60 2.2 2.0 262 44% Prisma 301 182 364 328 36 2.0 1.8 234 71% Elan 1 603 1,209 1,209 - 2.0 2.0 1 70 6% The Madison 260 468 468 1.8 1.8 104 22% The Line 228 359 342 17 1.6 1.5 - Legacy Sunflower (Proposed) 226 452 395 57 2.0 1 1.75 Notes: Parking Ratio Total = Total Parking Spaces / Units Residential Ratio = Residential Parking Spaces / Units Percent Tandem Stalls = Number of Tandem Stalls / Units Table 8: Proiect Density and Height Compared to Approved Multiple -Family Proiects The Line Harbor Mixed Use Under 5 levels + 6 3630 Westminster Avenue 58 du/ac Transit Corridor Construction levels of Specific Plan parking The Marke Specific 5 Levels 100 East MacArthur Boulevard 74 du/ac Development No. Constructed 76 Prisma (The 301) Specific 5 Levels 301 East Jeanette Lane 91 du/ac Development No. Constructed 59 The Madison 94 du/ac Metro East Mixed Entitled 7 Levels 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive Use Overlay Zone 2018 Elan 94 du/ac Metro East Mixed Entitled 7 Levels 1660 East First Street Use Overlay Zone 2018 Legacy Square 54 du/ac Transit Zoning Under 5 Levels Code SD-84 Review Legacy at Sunflower 5 levels + (proposed) 63 du/ac SD-94 (proposed) Proposed 6.5levels of parking ProJert• Togp4rative Information EXHIBIT 10 751-61 January 23, 2019 Engineer. & Planners Tmr6e Transportation Parking Mr. Tim O'Brien Lins can, Law & Legacy Partners Greenspan, Engineers 5141 California Avenue, Suite 100 2 Executive circle Irvine, CA 92617 suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 9491L25.6775 P 9i -Mlim E LLG Reference No. 2.18.3982.1 wwwJlgengineem.com Subject: Parking Demand Analysis for Pasadena Legacy Sunflower Apartments Inane Santa Ana, California San Diego Woodland Hills Dear Mr. O'Brien: As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Legacy Sunflower Apartments Project (hereinafter referred to as Project). The project proponent, Legacy Partners, proposes to develop up to 226 apartment units within five stories, consisting of 35 studio units, 114 one -bedroom units, and 77 two -bedroom units. The Project site is located on the northeast comer of Flower Street and Sunflower Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California and is currently occupied by Sound Chapel. Pursuant to our discussions and understanding of the City of Santa Ana requirements, the preparation of a parking study is required in order to validate that the proposed Project can adequately meet its parking demand needs. This report evaluates the Project's parking needs based application of City code, as well as a comparison to LLG's previous field studies of actual parking demand at existing sites with similar characteristics. This study focused on the following tasks: PUP 51 Lur=u, PE iva4 m a) Calculates the proposed Project parking requirements based on the application of Jack kt Greauspon, PE laal the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code parking ratios; identifies any Code -based Waham A Larv. PE lhal surplus or deficiency by comparing Code requirements against the proposed Paul W.John P. Raatmgaili g.P PE PE supply; GnvidS Shandnr, PE Jchn A 9earmnn, PE b) Compared actual field study parking requirements for multifamily residential uses ClarnlJ loo, Jacon'.PE at various locations to the requirements set forth by City Code. In addition, Pahad E. Gauetto. PE geil0 klakn,,. PE ,i,laiMC3 1,nv S_0J u'i 751-62 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 2 compared peak parking ratios for apartment complexes referenced in the Parking Generation (4h Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Shared Parking (2°4 Edition) published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County; c) Based on the parking requirement comparison assessment as stated above, calculated the average, 85a' Percentile and 95 h Percentile design -level peak parking demands and validated the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. Our method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are detailed in the following sections of this report. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land totaling 3.59-acres and is currently occupied by Sound Chapel located on the northeast corner of Flower Street and Sunflower Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California. The project site is currently zoned as LR-7 (Low Density Residential) and is proposed to be amended to SD (Special Development). Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the subject property in the context of the surrounding street system. The Project will include the development of a 226-unit apartment complex within five stories, consisting of 35 studio units, 114 one -bedroom units, and 77 two -bedroom units. Parking is proposed via a multi -level parking structure consisting of 452 spaces. Table I provides a summary of the proposed Project components. Figure 1 presents the site plan for the proposed Project prepared by TCA Architects PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Parking Requirements per City Code Requirements To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project, the parking requirement was calculated based on parking information published in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XV — Off -Street Parking. The following parking ratio was used to determine the required parking: a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit in multiple -family dwellings are as follows: one (1) space in a garage or carport. 751-63 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 3 b) Each multi -family dwelling site shall provide oft -street parking spaces, in addition to the minimum requirements of subsection (a) of this section, in an amount not less than the number of bedrooms on the site. Such spaces may be open or covered and may be assigned to particular units or not so assigned. Bachelor units shall be considered as one -bedroom units. c) In addition to the minimum requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, each multiple -family dwelling site shall provide guest parking, identified as such, in an amount of spaces not less than twenty-five (25%) percent of the minimum required spaces under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, but in no case less than three (3) spaces. Table 2 presents the code parking requirement for the Project. Review of Table 2 identifies that the Project would require 379 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 452 parking spaces, the Project is projected to have a parking surplus of 73 spaces when compared to the City's parking requirements. Given these results, the Project is anticipated to provide adequate parking based on direct application of City code. Although the Project is providing adequate number of parking spaces based on City Code requirement, the following section provides further justification that the City Code requirement is highly conservative when compared to the actual peak parking demand at similar existing sites. Comparison of Parking Ratios Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for multifamily residential uses have been found to be less than the City's own Code requirement as represented the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. This aspect is illustrated by LLG's previous field studies of actual parking demand at existing sites similar to the project, in addition to parking demand/empirical ratio compilations from other sources. Table 3 presents a comparison of site development and parking ratios from various sources. The upper portion of Table 1 presents twelve (12) comparable sites in Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel, and Pasadena. Additional detail for the comparable sites is also provided inclusive of the location, development summary, parking facility type, parking supply, presence of ground floor retail, survey period, empirically derived peak parking ratio and peak hour, and the Saturday daytime peak parking ratio and peak hour. Table 3 indicates that the total number of apartments units for each site ranges from 142 units to 481 units and includes a unit mix of studios, one -bedroom units, two -bedroom units, and/or three -bedroom units. Parking facilities at these locations include parking 751-64 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 4 structures, parking garages, and surface lots, with a combined parking supply for residents and the public/guests ranging from 223 spaces to 1,020 spaces. In addition to on -site parking, on -street parking is also available at two (2) of the facilities. More specifically, items 6 and 7 are mixed -use developments and have a retail component within their site. Table 3 further indicates that parking demand surveys/observations were conducted on one to two "typical" weeknights (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) at nine of the comparable sites, and on a Saturday at three of the sites. These survey time periods were selected for analyses because parking needs are the greatest during these times; more specifically, peak demand for residential uses typically occurs during weeknights compared to weekday daytime and weekend conditions. This parking demand characteristic is evident from the hourly parking profiles in the Shared Parking (2°d Edition) publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) that indicate 90% to 100% parking occupancy between 6:00 PM and 12:00 AM/midnight, and the Parking Generation (4's Edition) publication by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) that reports 92% to 100% parking occupancy between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM for low/mid-rise apartments (the only residential type with this data), and that parking demand is greater during these weekday overnight hours compared to a Saturday condition. Based on these considerations, it is concluded that the empirical basis for the peak parking ratios reported on Table 3 coincides with, and is representative of, the absolute peak parking condition for each of the surveyed sites. The tenant and guest peak parking ratio (spaces per DU) for each of the twelve comparable sites under absolute peak conditions (occurring on a weeknight, as explained above) and Saturday daytime conditions (where available) are presented on Table 3. The array of absolute peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.35 spaces per unit, an 85d' percentile ratio of 1.48 spaces per unit, and a 95d' percentile ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit. Saturday parking ratios are less, and range between 0.97 and 1.13 spaces per unit, occurring from noon to 3:00 PM. It should be noted that the city code requirement of 379 spaces when compared to the Project's total of 226 apartment units, translates to a peak parking ratio of 1.68 spaces per dwelling unit, which is greater than the aforementioned peak parking ratios stated above. Given that these sites are comparable in terms of apartment unit mix (i.e. one -bedroom, two -bedroom, three -bedroom, etc.) and nine (9) of the sites come within under 100 total units compared to the proposed Project, LLG concludes that the parking ratios derived from the twelve comparable sites are accurate representations for the unique parking characteristics of the proposed Project that are not reflected in the City Code ratio. 751-65 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 5 ITE's Parking Generation publication, and ULI's Shared Parking publication, as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, provide peak parking ratios for apartment complexes, as summarized in the lower portion of Table 3. These parking ratios range from 1.37 spaces per unit (average ratio per ITE for high-rise apartments similar to the Project) to 1.66 spaces per unit (field studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga). In order to provide more context behind the location and parking -related characteristics for the most relevant sites in Table 3, we have compiled the following information with regards to land use setting, proximity to public transit, and availability of off -site parking (i.e., on -street spaces, nearby off -site parking spaces): Project/Leracv Sunflower Apartments: 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities located along the Project frontage. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Flower Street/Sakioka Drive at Sunflower Avenue. There is no Park & Ride facility in the nearby vicinity of Legacy Sunflower Apartments. The adjoining land uses to Legacy Sunflower Apartments consist of mostly residential, with an existing elementary school directly north of the Project site. There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Siglo/Main Street and Jamboree Road/Main Street. The nearest Park & Ride lot is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of Main Street Village, near the intersection of Culver Drive at Sandburg Way. The adjoining land uses to Main Street Village consist of mostly office and residential uses. On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Myrtle Avenue (north of Walnut Avenue), Olive Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Ivy Avenue. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Primrose Avenue/Walnut Avenue. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metro Light Rail station is located about 0.7 miles to the south of Paragon at Old Town, near the intersection of Myrtle Avenue/Duarte Road. The adjoining land uses to Paragon at Old Town consist of shopping/food uses to the north, residential uses to the east, and office/warehouse building to the south and west. On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Madison Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Union Street. Further, several paid public parking lots are located nearby, including on the west side of Madison Avenue and a 751-66 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 6 few south of Colorado Boulevard. Existing bus stops are located at the intersection of El Molino Avenue/Union Street, as well as various bus stops located Colorado Boulevard. An existing Park & Ride lot is located about 0.5 miles to the northwest of Trio Apartments, near the intersection of Marengo Avenue/Walnut Street. Further, existing Metro Light Rail stations are located at Lake Street/I-210 Freeway (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments) and near Raymond Avenue/Holly Street (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments). The adjoining land uses to Trio Apartments consist of mostly office and commercial uses. There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing bus stops are located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Country Club Drive/Oso Parkway and Marguerite Parkway/Oso Parkway. There is no Park & Ride facility in the nearby vicinity of Adagio on the Green. The adjoining land uses to Adagio on the Green consist of mostly residential uses, with a golf course to the north and south of Oso Parkway and some commercial uses. There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located immediately east of the SR-73 Freeway, along Forbes Road (about 0.2 miles from Skye at Laguna Niguel). The adjoining land uses to Skye at Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located about 0.3 miles to the southeast from Apex Laguna Niguel, along Forbes Road. The adjoining land uses to Apex Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. Based on the above descriptions of six existing sites, locational and parking -related characteristics are similar and comparable to the Project (i.e., not located in a TODfTransit-Oriented Development, with no off -site parking nearby, which can reduce on -site parking needs), with their empirical parking demand ratios considered to be indicative of the Project's potential parking needs. The Project will be providing a supply of 452 spaces, which, when divided by 226 dwelling units, corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit. This supply ratio of 2.0 spaces per dwelling units is 30% to 65% greater than the empirical ratios from the six comparable sites most similar to the Project. 751-67 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 7 Project Parking Supply versus Demand The bottom portion of Table 3 estimates the project's parking needs based on the application of the average, 850h percentile, and 95" percentile parking rates from comparable sites. For the 226 units as now proposed, it is estimated that the average demand would be 305 spaces, the 85'h percentile demand would be 334 spaces, and the 95'h percentile demand would be 364 spaces. Comparing the 95 h percentile demand of 364 spaces against the proposed supply of 452 spaces yields a surplus of 88 spaces. Given these results, we conclude that the proposed parking supply of 452 spaces is adequate to accommodate the parking needs for the Legacy Sunflower Apartment Project. In addition, on -site management of the project will utilize best management practices to insure that all tenants understand that parking of vehicles is only permitted on site and is a condition of the rental agreement. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Legacy Sunflower Apartment Project is proposing to construct a podium style apartment project consisting of up to 226 apartment units within five stories, consisting of 35 studio units, 114 one -bedroom units, and 77 two -bedroom units. Parking is proposed via a multi -level parking structure consisting of 452 spaces. 2. This parking demand analysis validates that the proposed parking supply of 452 spaces is adequate to accommodate the parking needs of the Project. 3. Direct application of City of Santa Ana Municipal Code parking requirements to the proposed Project (226 DU) results in a total parking requirement of 379 parking spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 452 spaces, a code surplus of 73 spaces is calculated. Given these results, the Project is anticipated to provide adequate parking based on direct application of City code. 4. Based on a comparison of parking ratios between twelve (12) sites within the cities of Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel and Pasadena, a 95'h Percentile "design -level" parking ratio of 1.61 was applied to the proposed 226 units which results in a parking demand of 364 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 452 spaces, a surplus of 88 spaces is calculated. 751-68 Mr. Tim O'Brien January 23, 2019 Page 8 5. Based on the above findings, we conclude that based on the application of the 95a' Percentile "design -level" parking ratio of 1.61 derived from twelve (12) comparable sites, adequate parking would be provided on site to accommodate the proposed Project. 6. Given these parking demand analysis results, we conclude that the Project's proposed parking supply of 452 spaces is more than adequate when compared to the requirements of City Code (code smphis of 73 spaces) and application of comparable parking ratios from twelve (12) sites within the cities of Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel and Pasadena (minimant smphis of 88 spaces). We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this parking analysis for Legacy Sunflower Apartments. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers f;IZef Keil D. Mabeny, P.E. Principal cc: Shane S. Green, P.E., Transportation Engineer III Attachments 751-69 pa - ZB6fB1Z\OO6C ou 610Z-S1-10 WTV91 d01 -P'la Z66C\ sp\ uWad\wp plum 'quauryndo raagaune pbalto a VA,, �` w n/3C ti tixY or ti �u.wa.,r% �� �.ti Y•_:' Sao- Itz 16 KU" Street � Z s r yYtie '•_ � � tit SSlnno.ei] t] - 'x:S :• •��:' r L..-�" N .gda`1-�_.. . 13 3i •;;�! _. -_..-. semis <-'c Is u n St�avmdp I i>i„sl i ' o � G ,� c c a: m c �[i#[ififf�c N o o c S F'mv_; jl S Flower SI `� 5 Flo�';iTaTl wawa,. i ^ c taa _2 o II a Fa¢wa:v c c W � a C a m E c m 6 4 � i E u F. va ra cf- n m e E 7 c N K S 9ris1o151 e S Bristol El Bn^,I01 St qe it y N U 0 is V _ N T ci'z�n lr YI C;� y, 0 c• n $ 1y In 751-70 TABLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARYI LEGACY SUNFLOWER APARTMENTS, SANTA ANA Project Land Use / Project Description Development Totals Lenacv Sunflower Aoarhaents o Studio Units 35 Units 0 1 Bedroom Units 114 Units 0 2 Bedroom Units 77 Units Total Residential Units: 226 Units Parking SIPticktre o Basement 1 10 spaces o Level 1 65 spaces o Level 2 71 spaces o Level 3 76 spaces o Level 4 76 spaces o Level 5 76 spaces o Roof 78soaces Total Parking Supply: 452 spaces t Sounce: Legacy Sunflower Site Plan eB Y Prepared by 7'CA Architects, 17lLI/IS. i 751-72 TABLE 2 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT2 LEGACY SUNFLOWER APARTMENTS, SANTA ANA Spaces Land Use / Project Description Units City of Santa Ana Code Parking Requirement Required Leeacp Storllower Anartrnett o Studio Units 35 Units 1 space per bedroom 35 0 1 Bedroom Units 114 Units 1 space per bedroom 114 0 2 Bedroom Units 77 Units 1 space per bedroom 154 Total 226 Units 303 Guest parking 25% of total parking required (303 x 0.25) 76 Total Parking Code requirement 379 Proposed Parking Supply 452 Parking Surplus/Dericiency (+/-) +73 Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 41-1322 — Multiple -family dwellings. ,r,.�..,� i,. .. . 751-73 TABLE 3 COMPARABLE SITE DEVELOPIAENT KID PARIUNG RATIO SUELNARY LEGACY SUNFLOYrR APARTMENTB, SANTA ANA Temm 6: Gmrl Temnt&GwD Park Pvkke S.WN' Raga- Datilm hek 1"Aits, Swcrs Per DU Parkkg Bmk Co rtbk Site OW Ad4mss De.el ntSmmnn• Fodlin IYrllm S a Rebil Sen'e Perkd (Rak Hoar) (Pkak liner) 1 Cosh ISO". 'SO UGIuary Apvmm¢ 4385 es 1.73 MroMclik•n4d Mil-Rin DuL'vy AI¢a Oauktard • 80_,OWI Wis Smetue •ReSH.IM,SR — IWNIA) _ . in a:.• m tom¢ .cnEn-IR9. (Pn 431 Um Ap 1.020 Spiv 2 -Ydbys hlallSme lal Inirt 2555 hO' S. • 26518rdmom Ute¢ •16320dromn'UF Smeurc •Raife2�-94) _ Wed &'&vsss' Id2 -- •PibkGmb• tp. 19PA1-ILUI ( 121p MN •6 2W the AlnOnwt 3 279 L5it Cary W've _ .2Sn LM Qkt! 6005 T1 y 1.36 Ibl •16210e .Utfn S..Nm 6Ph1-IA\I (Peakfkm NlAl • rrkwt%s 5 JDJ Ub Cn1Vh 3 JrisA J02Wakdmml Gued Tuesday 1.29 J @7 Mie -- DN1oom Uw Snmme 641 Slav 6PAIdA\I IPek llaw N/AI -- - •AZBedrvom Ulis J60UtuApamnm Gaed 3 Uv Cmph 0 nlge _ •2561 Bedm9m Ute Swcme ]84 Space T1vdry I.J _ @] IN • ZOJ Z DNmomlhes �� ,PM-1AM (Pest W. NlA) Stz is Int 183 U1e Cssih IBJ Um APvmmD ca 1.1 6IN F1DmOn 129 1 lsfrom Wes R.Id.W 223Ratlrlsbl Spam Y. — -- • m 3 Bedmm User Strome IPeak Hum N!AI 250U1eca L' Sam 25013utA4mmvta Gaed O.W ] @] Am .. • 10H I OMvam (Ass Raidae6l 453 Rm Iftpam Ya — -- • I4S'-3 Belmmn Ulms $mane (Peak Hov N!AI pam4ynalOH ]oo S. 163 the APanrem Skfi. L9t 404 Slott¢ %V,dns,&Tmr d, [AS 8 Tmm[a] hlarorh hl5rlk •82l lirdmom We¢ Or Snrrl•Railem-329 sp. liml.l m Ateme •IS131 Bedroom lhiu Puki, •PWkOmb-73 rp. 1@I"a PM) TiD Apv0lrna 4J N. IN the Aparbrttb •465udn Urea $nbtt lol J805pun WedmdaYSllusdry 122 9 (a] Puadao hladk9n ,I411Btwm IMs OmSnmt •Rmikm•4m P. — IOPh1-12AA1 1¢^Cdp MII -• Asp • 117 Z Bedroom Utdr ParhhU •Pt kc.-30 sp. 10 Ada}j9on Oe M"ssun 2mo Oso� Gam. 512Spaees Wed da'@Tks,td' MI 0.9] G (d] Ycjo Pakx, -56Ihd Alumaro S kl�� • Raa.•ras- 424 CR S ansdpm.IBIJPBI 2M IE11_W MI) (r2 2D0 PM A •Pihkc.-88 sR iPM-3AM 3m PM) Sk'stit" - lagbv 281M 142 We APualmD IN Swra WclXU &Mrsda, ]Phl-2Ahl IA9 1.07 II Nyel Cabo •971 0Nroomlhes Gsn •paamU-'_JOsp Sa1Way:12PN1-3PA4 (�.IIf10 PM) (@12D0 PM) Rwd •452IkWmm Uv¢ •P W5.b-54 sp. ]Phl-2AM 2N60 IN IliAlamebs $39 SRI" Wcdlvd &Tlirsdry 12 APa lapin Lap- Csl os •3_Sm1k L•rib G., • Pc3L-m• 461 ]PM-2ASA 128 1.13 Noel[d] Navel Road • 161 I BNmojl ¢ P •PWkOaaD-lB ap. — S ,wda5. M.W31`hk (•5' 2W ASO (rL 3M PNO ,9124Woomlhes iPM-LUI AsanHe: US 85th Perrrn0e: -TIAB..'�e'. 95th PertmUe: 7p.:'A `:. AJAOonrl f>rt), limit, Rs4rtrca: 51E Partkg Gmemtka, 41h Edekn HWlUkA Aesnpc U7 mhhrtem0e: Im UU SAamlPartkg: Raidu (Rasa141kk 1.0 Ftld Snaics in Ois kud Rode cka s(e) 138.1.66 Alminn Cmmsv6b 51ney IA61 n 0 oink Ial Im IIo b Smenk San Bcmvdem xM Rh bU Ici 1.45 Puking Cakablkn U¢hM Engldsal Rotes Aborr (i6 DVs kr iabneY SWkwm Alamein A..p Dsmml(135 a 226 Durk JO!-_• JIM N..Ilk Drr-nd(1.48s 226 DUrk VO PertenOk DenvnJ(1.61r 216 DU* IJS [a]Saucy ParPkg DemandAta(15tfm the PmptsedFurh A'mn mlinglan Mre.1I4N.Use Pm/m Ca, fAko is. CWfamk Pr Mbe LLG. �1. Z012 (bl Smrce:Prvkkg Sude/orAlILlOmngedlvnwru Peyar.prtpuN by lBl Gmlp. Nov. 2012 (d] (Same:Portkg rm Blade Ea0'. Ribad W. Winn'201] Somrcfamwhnd by LLOon Dwwhcr 2016. 751-74 EXHIBIT 11 751-75 The Legacy Sunflower Mitigated Negative Declaration and technical appendices may be accessed at: Santa Ana City Hall Planning Counter, First Floor 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 or Santa Ana Main Library 26 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 M https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and- documents/legacy-sunflower 751-76 EXHIBIT 2 LS 6.4.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-75 AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-01 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Legacy Partners (Applicant) is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to amend the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban Neighborhood (UN) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community on the 3.59- acre property. B. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., as amended, and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act require the evaluation of environmental impacts in connection with proposals for discretionary projects. C. Pursuant to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study relative to the proposed project concluded that implementation of the project could result in potentially significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less -than -significant level. D. The City of Santa Ana prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75 for the proposed project which reflects the City's independent judgement and analysis as lead agency for the project. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have a less than significant environmental impact with implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are included to address potential impacts on construction -related noise, vibrations, and traffic. 751-77 E. On March 18, 2019, Notice of Intent to adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 was published in the Orange County Register newspaper, circulated to interested agencies, organizations and parties, and the Clerk for the County of Orange County. F. The documents related to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were made available for a 20-day public review and comment period at the Santa Ana City Hall, the Main Library, and on the project webpage on the City's website. G. Comments received were addressed in a Response to Comments document that provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid as disclosed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. H. The mitigation measures set forth in Mitigated Negative Declaration are fully enforceable and will be implemented using the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The public hearing was opened, public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2019. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. During its deliberations, the Planning Commission considered the environmental analysis and mitigation measures described in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. K. On June 4, 2019, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard, the project was fully considered, and all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution occurred. Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75, prepared with respect to this project. The MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis 751-78 of this review, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment and the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and adopts the MND and MMRP and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed Project will have the potential for any significant adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed Project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. However, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees in conjunction with this project is at the discretion of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; makes implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project, and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any significant adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. However, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees in conjunction with this project is at the discretion of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 751-79 Section 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as well as all supporting documents are on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 6. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 7. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Planning and Building Agency shall give direct notice to the Applicant of the City Council's decisions and these findings. ADOPTED this _ day of 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: c Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 751-80 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, NORMA MITRE, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2019. Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 751-81 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUNFLOWER LEGACY APARTMENTS Lead Agency: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714)667-2740 Project Proponent: Legacy Partners 5141 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92617 949-930-7700 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin & Associates 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (949) 454-1800 March 14, 2019 751-82 SECTION A B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. TABLE of CONTENTS Project Title .......................................... Lead Agency Name and Address......... Contact Person and Phone Number..... Project Location ................................... Project Sponsor's Name and Address.. General Plan Designation .................... Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PAGE ................................................................. . .................................................................1 ................................................................. 1 .................................................................1 Zoning.......................................................................................................................1 Description of Project................................................................................................1 Surrounding Land Uses.............................................................................................6 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ................................................. 6 Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc .................................................. 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................12 Determination..........................................................................................................12 Issues.....................................................................................................................14 Explanations of Issues............................................................................................ 22 I. Aesthetics.......................................................................................................22 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources............................................................... 31 III. Air Quality....................................................................................................... 32 IV. Biological Resources......................................................................................46 V. Cultural Resources.........................................................................................47 VI. Energy............................................................................................................47 VII. Geology and Soils.......................................................................................... 50 Vill. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................53 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 56 X. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................... 59 XI. Land Use........................................................................................................63 XII. Mineral Resources..........................................................................................65 XIII. Noise..............................................................................................................66 XIV. Population and Housing.................................................................................. 87 XV. Public Services...............................................................................................91 XVI. Recreation......................................................................................................93 XVII. Transportation................................................................................................ 93 XVIII.Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................102 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................103 XX. Wildfire.........................................................................................................105 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................................106 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page i Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-83 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Appendices Appendix A — Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Reports Appendix B — Geotechnical Report Appendix C — Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment Appendix D — Preliminary Hydrology Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix E — Noise Report Appendix F — Traffic Report Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page ii Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-84 LIST of FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Map............................................................ 2. Local Vicinity Map ..................................................... 3. Aerial Photo.............................................................. 4. USGS Topo Map ....................................................... 5. Site Plan................................................................. 6. On -Site Photographs ................................................. 7. Surrounding Land Use Photos .................................. 8. Surrounding Land Use Photos .................................. 9. Photo Orientation Map .............................................. 10 Landscape Plan ........................................................ 11. North/South Building Elevations ............................... I t' Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Page 2 3 ................................................ ..... 4 ................................................ 5 ................................................ 7 ................................................ 8 ................................................ 9 ..............................................10 ..............................................11 .............................................. 24 .............................................. 25 26 12. 13. West/East Building E eva ions............................................................................ Project Entrance from Sunflower Avenue................................................................ 27 14. Open Space............................................................................................................30 15. Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response ..................................................... 70 16. Noise Measurement Location Map...............................................................6.......... 72 17. Buildout Traffic Noise Levels........................................................ ..............6............ 82 18. Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration................................................6................ 85 19. Project Traffic Distribution...........................................................6...............4........... 95 20. Cumulative Project Location Map... ... .......... 4 ......... 66 ....... 666 ......... 6 ...... 107 LIST of TABLES Table Page 1. State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards........................................................ 35 2. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status................................................................ 37 3. Air Quality Monitoring Summary .............................................................................. 38 4. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds......................................................... 39 5. Construction -Related Regional Pollutant Emissions ................................................ 41 6. Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed per Day ........................................................ 42 7. Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ......................................... 43 8. Regional Operational Pollution Emissions...............................................................44 9. Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................... 55 10. Peak Flow Comparison Summary........................................................................... 62 11. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels......................................................... 66 12. Demolition Noise Levels..........................................................................................68 13. Project Grading Noise Levels..................................................................................68 14. Short -Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) ...................................................71 15. FICON Noise Level Criteria.....................................................................................74 16. City of Santa Ana Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ......................................... 75 17. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels......................................................... 77 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page iii Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-85 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 18. Demolition Noise Levels.......................................................................................... 7E 19. Grading Noise Levels..............................................................................................7E 20. Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Roadway Parameters ........................... 75 21. Change in Existing Noise Levels Along Roadway As A Result of Project (dBA CNEQ............................................................................................................ 80 22. Buildout Traffic Noise Levels and Recommended Window STC Rating ................... 80 23. Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels .................................................... 86 24. Typical Human Reaction and Effects on Buildings Due to Groundborne Vibration .. 86 25. Santa Ana Progress Towards Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2014-2021........ 89 26. Project Traffic Generation Rates and Forecast........................................................ 93 27. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .............................. 96 28. Year 2022 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .............................................. 98 29. Year 2040 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................ 100 30. Cumulative Projects..............................................................................................106 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page iv Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-86 PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Project Title: Legacy Sunflower Apartments B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 C. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ivan Orozco (714) 667-2763 D. Project Location: The project is located in the City of Santa Ana as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. More specifically, the project is located at the northeast corner of Flower Street and Sunflower Avenue as shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site and the surrounding area is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo. The on -site topography is shown in Figure 4, USGS Topography Map. E. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Legacy Partners 5141 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92617 949-930-7700 F. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated Low Density Residential (LR-7) land use by the Santa Ana General Plan. The project would require a general plan amendment to Urban Neighborhood (UN). G. Zoning: The project site is zoned Single -Family Residence (R1). The project would require a zone change to Specific Development (SD). H. Description of Project: The project applicant proposes the development of 226 multi -family apartments on a 3.59-acre site located at 651 Sunflower Avenue. The property is developed with the Sound Church and would be demolished. The church proposes to relocate to the downtown area of Santa Ana with development of the project. The project proposes 226 apartments in a five -story building. A six level parking structure, which includes one level of subterranean parking and five levels above ground, is proposed for the middle of the site along the northern project boundary with a five - story apartment building wrapped around the five level parking structure on three sides. The apartment building and the parking structure would front Sunflower Avenue. The main driveway for access to the project Is from Sunflower Avenue at the middle of the site. The project Includes a central outdoor courtyard with a swimming pool and spa, outdoor furniture, bar-b-ques, outdoor yoga and fitness court and restrooms at the apartment building on the west side of the site. A central fitness center, clubroom and business center/conference room, mailroom, parcel room, bike storage area and apartment leasing area are proposed for the westerly apartment building. Two active open space areas are proposed in the eastern area of the site and Include a dog park and garden and outdoor dining area for project residents. The project Includes studio, one -and two -bedroom apartments ranging in average size of 612 square feet for the studio apartments, 670 square feet for the one - bedroom apartments and 1,105 square feet for the two -bedroom apartments. The project Includes 35 studio apartments, 114 one -bedroom apartments and 77 two -bedroom apartments. Some of the ground floor apartments would have terraces. All of the remaining units would have balconies. The apartment building would be 75 feet in height to the top of roof and the parking structure would be 70 feet in height. The project proposes 452 parking spaces, Including 10 subterranean parking spaces, Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-87 ® Phil Martin &Assoc►ates,Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA IV West Covina Los Angeles �) Pomone east Los C ® mtyor O O Angeles W mausty ood Downey ® C Brea hino State Compton O (] p Yorba Linda Fullerton Lakewood 3nce Anaheim m O C W ,Lonq Beach Garden Grove © G t TeQnlra P.wi Santa Ana ii�t nniill .. L�„`77ocationy * „ v ® ® Irvine "' tington, t Le ti; O r t I O ' ,w <v O � Source: Fiful Martin &Associates, Inc. N 751-88 Figure 1 Regional Map Page 2 ® Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA -_ Lillie - King Palk - - r. ,h k Fi•`4 f- S 17 C .. s I 3 WCd,,bme Ave WC.Un'bme Are t y 9 rb}a n w eem A,. E ark Avo Californian Apartments South Coast Villas '; Santannel Delhi no W Bet Ave •- DoubleTree by Q 'x w Mime Ave Hotel Sant Courly W MacArthur Btvd W MacArthur Como Blvd W MacArthur Blvd W MacArthur Blvd Marriott Santa Koral Park 3 T Juniper Ave 5 £ ur VillageQ 4 Ssndeglnte Notior Institute - Sa 5 ¢ MJrptq Ave T S ve N y to la Taft Elementary chool Ave 3 Ultimate quet Q t eI 3 w Park Plaza Apartments 9 v; _ 1C sl Terrace Q :o a' £ ominiums Project Nate's Korner Location Ave - Sunflower Ave Sunflower Ave > 0 Q 3400 Avenue of Enclave a m , rstrom Center © the Arts Apartments for the Arts4 '.. as - The Enclave at South Coast Apartment Homes c 3 •^.ouse �} ©?r3I(ndays Starbw*s © ExperianQ . .r< 55 24 Hour Fitness r Noquchi Super Sport Garden The MET OC KickboxingQ Mixed Martial Artss Source: Google Maps, 2017 N San Diego Fwy 751-89 Figure 2 Local Vicinity Map Page 3 be 751-90 =Phil Martin &ASSOCiatei,Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA pool blq yninri.�f ° . �. •A.mwEP a, Q.... f■ sold" o-1 Wa � z t!I�'• , • . +•4�3� jr III -� 19 Wa• - T� wel S TiF wAq ta • 1~ OWE • AYE / Y E, y ;t Project •r _..-... Location G�A MESA I i 1 Z2n _ E_s . i I •� • Yc ♦ 4. I99 i PEll 5,1 ..1— • �� ♦.�. �•W hl 'D.—i. .r iE 1.`A°GP . L+ �. K1Aliioal / �• , •vY _ l `§`E ♦/� r YNE40' ,{`` ♦♦ -R?r •ua•a�_oS x }� ls.0 a . �/ {P ��yyyyy�. ♦4i count na c4 t``,r ti••d • f 43 Oil P, 1981 N Figure 4 ® USGS Topo Map 751-91 Page 5 and handicap spaces. Four bicycle parking spaces are proposed. The project proposes 57,957 square feet of open space including 22,781 square feet of passive open space, 24,096 square feet of active open space and 11,080 square feet of private open space. A total of 227 storage units are proposed for all five levels in the parking structure, Including 20 storage units In the subterranean parking level, for use by the residents. Landscaping Is proposed within the required setbacks along all sides of the site. The existing student drop-off area for Taft Elementary school is adjacent to and north of the site and would remain with the project. Access to the road for the student drop-off area at the school is from Sunflower Avenue at the east side of the site. The exit for the student drop-off area is at the west side of the project. This existing "looped" student drop-off route would be preserved and incorporated Into the project and allow parents to continue to drop-off students at Taft Elementary school via Sunflower Avenue as the existing condition. Trash bins would be located at the north side of the site and within the parking structure. Waste bins would be located on each floor of the parking structure for tenants of each floor to deposit their solid waste. A trash loading area is proposed for the northeast area of the site. Trash trucks would enter the site at the east end of the site from the same driveway that Taft Elementary parents use to drop off students at Taft Elementary School. Trash trucks can also exit the site at the same east driveway at Sunflower Avenue. An emergency vehicle access route is proposed along the north project boundary for emergency vehicle access from both the west and east sides of the site at Sunflower Avenue. The project is scheduled to be constructed in two phases. Project construction would start in the first quarter of 2020 and the first phase completed in October 2021. The second phase is scheduled to be completed in December 2021 or early 2022. The project proposes Modem architecture. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 5. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The existing on -site land use includes the Sound Church, parking lot and open space. The land uses surrounding the project that are In the City of Santa Ana Include Taft Elementary school to the north, multi -family homes to the east and multi -family units to the west, west of Flower Street. The Enclave Apartment development to the south, south of Sunflower Avenue, the Avenue of the Arts apartment development to the southwest, southwest of the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Sakioka Drive are in the City of Costa Mesa. Sunflower Avenue that is adjacent to and south of the site is the boundary between the cities of Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. An open Orange County flood control channel extends along the east side of Flower Street and forms the west project boundary. Figure 6 shows photographs of the on -site land uses and Figures 7 and 8 show the surrounding land uses. Figure 9 Is a photo orientation map showing the location of the on -site and surrounding land use photos. J. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The discretionary action required from the City of Santa Ana includes a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LR-7) to Urban Neighborhood (UN), a Zone Change to Specific Development (SD) zoning on the site and site plan approval. The project would also require a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project would not require any other approvals from public agencies. K. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Tribal letters were mailed December 31, 2018 to six tribes that formally invited consultation with the City in compliance with 21080.3.1. The Gabriellno Ban of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation contacted the City and requested consultation. The tribes that were contacted include: 1. Gabrielino Ban of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation 2. Gabrielenolfongva Nation Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-92 _y \ � ^ T/ ; \ |. � z C � .IF Q z Q H z Q LL O r_ V W J LL Z !N } V 'Q^ V W J F a r•J 751-94 m LU 0 J li z N } U Q U LLI J CQ..J W. W 0 v m a 751-95 Q z Q H z Q LL O H V w 3 O J LL z N } U Q (.I w J f r OW m a 751-96 751-97 3. Gabrieleno/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council 4. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians — Acjachemen Nation 5. Gabrielino — Tongva Tribe 6. Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict In the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3 (c) contains provisions specific to confidentiallty. L. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. El Aesthetics — i ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources — i ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ; ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Hazards and Hazardous ------------- ....1------------------- --------- Materials 11 Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreations i 0 Transportation 0 Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems i ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of -------- .------------- -------- ------ Signi—ftficance-- J M. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this Initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant Impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-98 measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Date A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the Impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, Including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, Indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less -than -significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope .of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-99 c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or Individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. N. ISSUES: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ED c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-100 II. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, Including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special ❑ ❑ ❑El Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-101 status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ El f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental Impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-102 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ IL Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Vill. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant Impact on the environment? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-103 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, will the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or residing in the project area? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving wildland fires? ❑ ❑ ❑ X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which would: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ❑ ❑ ® Cl (ii) substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site; ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (III) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or El El Z 11 (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ El d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-104 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ED XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-105 or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XVI. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: ❑ ❑ ® ❑ El 11 ❑❑ El ❑° o 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local El of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or ►41 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 El ❑■ I■ 0 it. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in ❑ ❑ ❑ subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-106 subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or In excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Reguire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result or runoff, post -fire slope ❑ ❑ ❑ Instability, or drainage changes? Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-107 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ O. Explanation of Issues AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. There are no State or County designated scenic vistas either adjacent to or within direct view of the site and would be impacted by the project. Furthermore, there are no city designed scenic resources, including scenic corridors, secondary corridors, city entries, inter -city corridors or scenic views identified in the Scenic Corridors Element of the Santa Ana General Plan that are adjacent to the site. MacArthur Boulevard, which is a Primary Street Corridor and located approximately one-half mile north of the project, is the closest city designated street corridor to the site and is not visible from the site. The project would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no state designated scenic highways and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway either adjacent to or visible from the site that would be removed or altered by the project. The closest state designated scenic route to the project is the section of the 91 Freeway from the 55 Freeway on the west to the east Anaheim area, which is approximately eleven miles northeast of the project. The project is not visible from this section of the 91 Freeway that is a state designated scenic highway. The project would not impact a state scenic resource. c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-108 Significant Impact. The project would remove the existing single -story Sound Church, surface parking lot, landscaping and other site improvements to develop a five -story apartment building, a six level parking structure, landscaping, and other site improvements. The project would reflect a Modern architecture. The existing landscaping throughout the site would be replaced with new perimeter landscaping consisting of street trees, shrubs, groundcover, etc. Trees and landscaping are proposed throughout the project site where none currently exists. The proposed landscaping along the project perimeter and throughout the site would be visible to motorists and pedestrians on Sunflower Street and Flower Street and Improve the visual character of the site to the surrounding community compared to the existing condition. Figure 10 shows the proposed landscape plan. The project would change the visual character of the site from a single story church with surface parking and open space to high denslty residential consisting of a five -story apartment building and a six level parking structure. The proposed residential building would be a maximum height of 75' and the parking structure would be approximately five feet less, or 70'. The development adjacent to and surrounding the site Include a single -story elementary school to the north and two- and three-story apartments and townhomes to the west, south and east. The Avenue of the Arts apartment development in the City of Costa Mesa at the southwest corner of Sunflower Avenue and Flower Avenue is five -stories in height and approximately 200 feet southwest of the project. The South Coast Plaza Town Center Master Plan, which is south of the project, is located east of Bristol Street, north of the 1-405 freeway and south of Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. There are more than fourteen buildings in the Town Center Master Plan that are greater than 8 stories in height with multiple buildings greater than 14 stories in height. Therefore, there are buildings within half a mile of the project that are greater than 14 stories and taller than the proposed five -story apartment building. However, none of the existing buildings adjacent to the site are as tall as or taller than the proposed five -story apartment building. While the proposed apartment building and parking structure would be incompatible with the existing residences in the two story buildings west and east of the site, the project is not out of character with the three-story apartment buildings in The Enclave south of the project and the five -story apartment buildings in the Avenue of the Arts development southwest of the site. Building elevations showing the proposed apartment building and parking structure are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Figure 13 shows the project entrance from Sunflower Avenue. The project design, architecture and landscaping would be required to meet the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Urban Design Element. The Urban Design Element establishes a long range vision regarding the City's urban form. This Element, in coordination with other Elements of the General Plan, orchestrates a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing urban environment. Together with the other Elements of the General Plan, the Urban Design Element aims to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional, and chaotic development. This Element specifically addresses outdoor space and building form, and establishes programs and measures to Improve the physical setting in which community life takes place.' The Urban Design Element establishes "elements" including districts, paths, nodes, focus intersections, landmarks, and gateways. Based on Exhibit 3 of the Urban Design Element, the project is not located adjacent to or near any designated elements. The closest designated element to the project is MacArthur Boulevard, which is approximately one-half mile to the north and designated a Major Path. The Urban Design Element Includes goals and policies that promote the creation of an urban form that Is both pleasing and functional. The applicable goals and polices of the Urban Design Element to the proposed project Include the following: ' City of Santa Ana General Plan Urban Design Element, page 1. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-109 Q z Q H z u. 0 } V W J LL z n N } U Q C) W J 751-110 U E 5 B =Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Figure 12 West/East Building Elevations 751-112 Page 26 W .. =I ET -- w � :-V tunt „1 Ill C"iP4 P.._i ' II Imi mi all IM .. rscaa�• QI Goals Goal 3 Create and maintain a pleasant travel experience and strong orientation to the community through coordinated on -site and streetscape design. Policies 1.1 New development and redevelopment projects must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. 1.2 Site design must clearly define public spaces through building placement and orientation. 1.3 Development and other design features that prevent loitering, vandalism, graffiti and visual deprivation are to be Included in all projects. 1.4 Enhanced architectural forms, textures, colors and materials are expected in the design of all projects. 1.5 Plazas, open spaces and courtyards connecting to public right-of-ways so as to encourage public interactions will be promoted. 1.6 On and off -site Improvements must be pedestrian friendly. 1.7 Shared access, circulation and parking are encouraged as a means to minimize the amount of asphalt while increasing landscape in parking lots. 1.8 Utility lines for new development are to be placed underground. 2.1 Projects must acknowledge and improve upon their surroundings with the use of creative architectural design, streetscape treatments, and landscaping. 2.2 New development must be consistent with the scale, bulk, and pattern of existing development. 2.7 New development must exhibit a functional, comfortable scale in relation to its neighborhood. 2.8 The character and uniqueness of existing districts and neighborhoods are to be protected from Intrusive development. 2.9 Streetscapes, building placement, and predominant landscape setbacks that exceed code minimums should be preserved and enhanced. 2.10 Where no coherent theme exists, community Identify is to be developed through the introduction of architectural themes or unique Streetscapes. 3.2 Maximize the use of street trees and parkway landscaping to create a pleasant travel experience and positive City image. 3.15 Create a diverse urban forest through the use of a large variety of trees in medians, parkways, public open space and as part of private development. The project meets the applicable goal of the Urban Design Element as shown in the elevations. As shown, the south elevation of the project shows landscaping along the project boundary, including the frontage area between the apartment building and the parking structure and Sunflower Avenue to provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along this section of Sunflower Avenue. The apartment building and parking structure provide a mix of colors and facade setbacks to eliminate long flat walls. The parking structure and the mechanical equipment on the roof of the apartment building would not be directly visible from the existing land uses west, south and east of the site. The cars in the parking structure would be visible to Taft Elementary School and land uses north of the project. The project also meets the applicable goals of the Urban Design Element with quality design, building materials and finishes. The site plan shows areas of public space throughout the project site Including an entry courts, the pool area within the westerly apartment building and landscaped open space areas Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 28 751-114 within the easterly apartment building with pedestrian access for project residents. The apartment building and parking structure are oriented towards Sunflower Avenue to focus development away from Taft Elementary school north of the site. Maintaining the existing driveway into the project for student drop-off at Taft Elementary school would minimize the amount of asphalt required for project trash collection. The project proposes on -site walkways to encourage pedestrian friendly access throughout the site. All off -site sidewalks adjacent to the site would be maintained with the project. All on -site utilities would be placed underground. The existing overhead power lines along the north side of Sunflower Avenue would be maintained in their existing overhead status. The project is generally consistent with the scale, bulk and pattern of the existing multi -family development south and southwest of the site. The apartment project directly south of the site Is three stories In height and similar to the project that is five stories. The multi -family project southwest of the site is four stories in height and similar to the project. The project is generally consistent with the function and scale of the two multi -family development projects south and southwest of the site that are three and five stories in height, respectively. Although consistent with the multi -family use of the developments west and east of the project, those adjacent projects are two -stories in height where the proposed apartment building is five stories in height. Therefore, the project is consistent with the use and character of the multi -family development east and west of the project, but Inconsistent with the height of the existing developments. New street trees are proposed along the north side of Sunflower Avenue to create a pleasant travel experience for pedestrians and motorists on Sunflower Avenue. Based on the proposed landscape plan, the use of trees, shrubs, and other landscape materials the project would create a diverse urban landscape throughout the project to buffer the project from adjacent surrounding development and provide an aesthetically pleasing project from surrounding areas. The project proposes both active and passive open space areas for project residents as shown in Figure 14. Overall, the project would comply with the General Plan and the Design Guidelines and have less than significant visual Impacts. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that will adversely affect day or nighttime views In the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The interior and exterior lights of the existing church and the headlights of the cars that enter and leave the site during nighttime hours generate light to the Immediate project area. Glare generated by the reflection of the sun on the windows of the church and cars in the parking lot also generates glare in the immediate project vicinity. The light and glare that is presently generated from the site is not known to impact adjacent surrounding land uses. The project site is exposed to light and glare that is generated by the existing residential uses to the west, south and east and Taft Elementary School adjacent to and north of the site. Motor vehicles traveling on Flower Street and Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the site also generate light and glare onto the site. The existing multi -family developments south and southwest of the site also generate light and glare that are visible from the site. There are numerous sources of light and glare both on and off the site, therefore, light and glare is not unique to the area. New sources of light generated by the project include City required exterior safety and security lighting associated with the proposed residential building, interior parking structure lighting, Interior lighting of the proposed apartments, landscape lighting, entrance lighting, streets lights along Sunflower Avenue, etc. These new sources of lighting would Increase the amount of light that is currently generated from the site. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-115 U Q—..___ Z1-- -'--_--__— _ Q I woa nvmoani Z— Ln �A W Y pLL- MMW 's W AM y kk N V l W L w� Ji s! I ".r i ¢L t I I s I r pi • d -----' , a w„ •. woanvM-3�o � �n ------------------------L- ------------ - v�51-116 The headlights from cars entering and leaving the site would, like the current condition, be visible after dark. However, the project would increase the amount of light that is generated by cars entering and leaving the site compared to the existing condition. The main project entrance is at Sunflower Avenue near the middle of the site. The headlights of the cars leaving the project at night would shine directly south towards The Enclave apartment development south of Sunflower Avenue. The car headlights would not directly shine into the apartments south of the site because there is landscaping, an existing six-foot block wall and garages between the cars exiting the project and the apartment units of The Enclave. Therefore, the residents south of the project would not be significantly impacted by the headlights of cars exiting the site at the main driveway on Sunflower Avenue. The interior and exterior lights of the proposed apartment building and the parking structure would Increase the intensity of lighting currently on the site. Due to the height of the proposed apartment building and parking structure and the increase in intensity compared to the existing church there would be a significant increase in on -site lighting. Although there is high density residential development in the immediate project vicinity associated with The Enclave and The Avenue of the Arts multi -family developments south of the site, the project would increase the intensity of lighting on the north side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to smaller scale and less dense multi -family development that could be noticeable to some existing residents in close proximity to the project. Glare is currently generated by metal surfaces and windows of the existing church and cars that are parked in the on -site parking lot. Off -site glare is generated by existing residential units and the Taft Elementary school adjacent to the site associated with metal building surfaces, windows and automobiles. Therefore, glare exists and is not unique to the project area. The project would generate more glare compared to the glare that is currently generated from the site due to metal surfaces of the residential building, parking structure and windows of the residential units. The South Coast Plaza Town Center Master Plan, which is south of the project, is located east of Bristol Street, north of the 1-405 freeway and south of Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. There are more than fourteen buildings in the Town Center Master Plan that are greater than 8 stories in height with multiple buildings greater than 14 stories in height. Several of the existing office buildings in the Town Center Master Plan have mirrored panels that reflect light and generate glare when the sun is shinning. Therefore, glare is not new to the general project area. While the light and glare that would be generated by the project would be noticeable compared to the existing condition, it is not anticipated the light and glare would significantly impact the existing residents adjacent to the project site. The light and glare generated by the project would not be significantly brighter or more intense than the light and glare that is generated by The Enclave and Avenue of the Arts residential projects because the project is similarly designed in that the project does not have large glass panels that would generate a significant amount of glare or allow interior apartment lights to be visibly noticeable. The City does not allow flood lighting and all project lighting and glare must meet and comply with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-210 (1)(m)(n)(o) that designate the intensity of lighting allowed for the project. Project compliance with the lighting requirements of the Santa Ana Municipal Code would reduce light and glare impacts to less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 31 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-117 California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is developed with a church, church parking lot and landscaping. There is no agricultural use either on or adjacent to the site. The site is designated "Urban and Built -Up Land" by the State of California Department of Conservation Orange County Important Farmland 2016 map.z Because there is no agricultural use on the site the project would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance to non- agricultural use and impact farmland. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not in a Williamson Act contract. The existing R1 Single -Family Residence zoning on the site does not allow agricultural use and the requested land use and zoning designations for the proposed project do not allow agricultural use. The project would not conflict with any existing agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. There is no timber or forests on the project site or in the City of Santa Ana. The city does not have any land that is zoned and allows timber or forest production. The requested zone change to Specific Development (SD) does not allow timber or forest production. The project would not impact any forest or timber production. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. See Response to section " I l.c)" above. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project would not result in the loss of any farmland, either individually or cumulatively, and have no impact to farmland. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality and greenhouse gas report' was prepared for the project. A copy of the air quality and greenhouse gas report is attached in Appendix A. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The city of Santa Ana is located in the SCAB. As a regional agency, SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies regarding air emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines and is directly responsible to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has prepared a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) and on June 30, 2016 released its Draft 2016 AQMP, which is a regional blueprint to achieve federal air quality standards and healthful Legacy Sunflower Air Quality and Global Climate Chan( Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 Page 32 751-118 air. On March 23, 2017 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the 2016 AQMP. The primary goal of the AQMP is to meet clean air standards and protect public health, including ensuring benefits to environmental justice and disadvantaged communities. The approved Plan has been forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review. If approved by EPA, the plan becomes federally enforceable. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d)). The regional plan that applies to the project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A discussion of the projects consistency with the Santa Ana General Plan is provided in Section XI of this document. This section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the project with the AQMP. The project must comply with and meet all applicable rules and regulations of the AQMP. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP". Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan Is usually not required. A project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified In the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both criteria are evaluated below. CRITERIA 1 — INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY OR SEVERITY OF VIOLATIONS Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the air quality report that was prepared for the project (see Appendix A) the short-term construction impacts would not have any significant air emission impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The air quality report also found that long-term operational air emission impacts would not result in any significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is consistent with the AQMP for Criteria 1. CRITERIA 2 — EXCEED ASSUMPTIONS IN THE AQMP Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (2016) includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region; creating a plan for our future; and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 33 751-119 CEQA. For this project, the City's General Plan Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The project site is designated Low Density Residential (LR-7) by the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan and requires a General Plan Amendment to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to allow the number of residential units proposed for the site. Although the project requires a general plan amendment, it is not inconsistent with the AQMP. According to SCAQMD, a project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP if the project furthers one of more policies of the AQMP and noes not obstruct other AQMP policies. In the case of the proposed project, the higher density than currently allowed for the site can reduce congestion and motor vehicle emissions because of the availability of alternative transportation adjacent to the site and the available of shopping, restaurants and entertainment within close proximity to the site to allow residents to walk to these locations. The higher density allows a smaller ecological footprint and provides long-term economic sustainability. In addition, the project would implement contemporary energy -efficient technologies and regulatory/operational programs that are required by Title 24, CALGreen and the City of Santa Ana. Generally, project compliance with SCAQMD emissions thresholds, reductions and control requirements, which the project meets, act to reduce project air emissions. The project's compliance with all applicable SCAQMD air quality standards allows the project to meet and be in conformance with the AQMD. Therefore, the project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for Criteria 2. Because the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not impact the AQMP. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources that travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. The project site is located within the SCAB, which is non -attainment for ozone and PM,o particulate matter. The emissions generated with the construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SCAB. The greatest cumulative impact on the regional air quality is the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic by residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks to construct these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. As stated in section "Ill.c)" below the project would not generate any short- or long-term air emissions that exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cumulative criteria pollutant impacts. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. A sensitive receptor is a person In the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are typically located: Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 34 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-120 • Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers • Long-term health care facilities • Rehabilitation centers • Convalescent centers • Hospitals • Retirement homes • Residences4 The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the students and administrators at the Taft Elementary School adjacent to and north of the site and the multi -family development adjacent to the east, residents of The Enclave apartment project to the south (south of Sunflower Avenue), residents of the Avenue of the Arts apartment project to the southwest (southwest of the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Sakioka Drive) and residents of the multi -family development to the west (west of Flower Street). State — California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (GARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for criteria pollutants are shown in Table 1. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Table 1 State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards Concentration / Averaging Time California Federal Primary Air Pollutant Standards Standards Most Relevant Effects (a) Decline In pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health Implied by alterations in pulmonary 0.09 ppm/1- morphology and host defense in animals; (c) hour Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health Ozone (Oa) 0.07 ppm/8- 0.070 ppm/8-hour Implied by altered connective tissue metabolism hour and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Ve etation damage; and 0 Property damage. 20.0 ppm/1- (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased Carbon hour m/1-hour 35.0 pp m/1-h exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral Monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm/8- 9.0 pp ur vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment hour of central nervous system functions; and (d) 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planninq, Chapter 2 pace 2-1. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-121 Possible increased risk to fetuses. (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory 0.18 ppm/1- disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive Nitrogen hour 100 ppb/1-hour groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by Dioxide (NO2) 0.03 0.053 ppm/annual pulmonary and extra -pulmonary biochemical and ppm/annual cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and c Contribution to atmospheric discoloration. 0.25 ppm/1- (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms Sulfur Dioxide hour 75 ppb/1-hour which may include wheezing, shortness of breath (S02) 0.04 ppm/24- 0.14 ppm/annual and chest tightness, during exercise or physical hour activity in persons with asthma. Suspended 50 pg/m3/24- Particulate hour 20 /m /24-hour 150 p9 3 (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients Matter (PMio) pg/m3/annual with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; Suspended 12 pglm3 / 35 pglm3/24-hour (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or Particulate annual 12 pg/m3/annual lung diseases in elderly. Matter (PM2.e) (a) Decrease In ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation Sulfates 25 pg/m3/24- No Federal of asthmatic symptoms; (c ) Aggravation of cardio- hour Standards pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; f) property damage. Lead 1.5 pg/m3/30- 0.15 pg/m3/3-month (a) Learning disabilities; (b) Impairment of blood day rolling formation and nerve conduction. Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - Visibility Reducing visibility of 10 miles or more No Federal Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity Particles due to Standards is less than 70 percent. particles when humidity is less than 70 percent. Source: nnps://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aagslaags2.pdf The SCAB has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, S02, NO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide. Table 2 shows the attainment and nonattainment status of the measured emissions in the SCAB. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 36 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-122 Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status' National StatuS2 Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme) Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified PM10 Nonattainment I Attainment (Maintenance) PM2.5 Nonattainment I Nonattainment (Moderate) (1) Source of State status: California Air Resources Board June 2017. (2) Source of National status: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html and CARB 2017. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. City of Santa Ana The City of Santa Ana is responsible to assess and mitigate air emissions by its land use decisions. The City is also responsible to implement transportation control measures as outlined in the 2016 AQMP. The City assesses the air quality Impacts of new development, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality Impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces Implementation of the mitigation. Because the City does not have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City meets federal and state standards, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The City of Santa Ana General Plan Conservation Element contains the following air quality -related goals and objectives that are applicable to the proposed project: Goal 3 Preserve and enhance the aesthetic and environmental quality of the community for the enjoyment of all residents. Objectives 1.1 Reduce air pollution emissions to achieve national ambient air quality standards. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 37 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-123 Monitored Air Quality The air quality at a site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Basin indicate that collectively, mobile sources account for 60 percent of the VOC, 90 percent of the NOx emissions, 95 percent of the CO emissions and 34 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 13 percent of PM2.5 from road dust. The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air -monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in the Central Orange County Air Monitoring Area (Area 17), which is located in the central portion of Orange County and covers an area from Anaheim to the north, Cypress to the west, Tustin to the east, and Fountain Valley to the south. Data was taken from the Costa Mesa -Mesa Verde Drive (Costa Mesa Station) and Anaheim -Pampas Lane (Anaheim Station) which are the closest monitoring stations to the project site. Table 3 summarizes years 2015 through 2017 published monitoring data, which is the most recent 3- year period available. The data shows that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the ozone and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy the local air quality conditions at the project site. Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary' Pollutant Pollutant (Standard)2 Year 2015 2016 2017 Ozone: Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.070 m) 0.099 0.090 0.088 1 0 0 0.080 0.069 0.080 2 0 4 2 0 5 Carbon Monoxide: Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) Days > CAAQS (9 ppm) Days > NAAQS (9 m) ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide: Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.18 m) 0.052 0.060 0.045 0 0 0 Inhalable Particulates (PM10):2 Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (Ng/m3) Days > NAAQS (150 pg/m3) Days > CAAQS (50 Ng/m3) Annual Average ( /m3) 59.0 74.0 95.7 0 0 0 2 3 5 5.5 27.5 26.9 Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM2.5): Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (pg/m3) Days > NAAQS (35 /m3) N9 Annual Average ( /m3) 53.8 45.5 56.2 3 1 7 14.7 9.4 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 38 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-124 (1) Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourl.php Data from the Costa Mesa -Mesa Verde Drive monitoring station unless noted. (2) CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million (3) Data from the Anaheim -Pampas Lane monitoring station. Insufficient data available to determine value. Air Emission Thresholds The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the project a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if project emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds shown in Table 4. Table 4 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Construction (Ibs/da) Operation (Ibs/da ) NOx 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 CO 550 550 Lead 3 3 Toxic Air Contaminants, Odor and GHG Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >- 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas >- 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0(project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial projects Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant SCAQMD Standards NO2 -1-hour average 0.18 ppm 338 /m^3 PM10 -24-hour average Construction Operations 10.4 pg/m^3 2.5 u /m^3 PM2.5 -24-hour average Construction Operations 10.4 pg/m^3 2.5 pgJMA3 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 39 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-125 SO2 1-hour average 0.25 ppm 24-hour average 0.04 ppm CO 1-hour average 20 ppm (23,000 pg/m^3) 8-hour average 9ppM (10,000 /m^3) Lead 30-day average 1.5 pg/m^3 Rolling 3-month average 0.15 pg/m43 Quarterly average 1.5 ua/m^3 Local Air Quality Project -related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SCAB. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Toxic Air Contaminants Construction The operation of the construction equipment that would be used to demolish, grade and construct the project would emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is a carcinogen. However, the DPM emissions are short-term in nature. The determination of the risk from the short-term generation of DPM is considered over a 30-year exposure period because carcinogenic risk is directly related to sustain exposure. In contrast, construction activities would be limited to a period of approximately 24 months for the project based on the estimated construction schedule. Therefore, the duration of construction activities would represent a fraction of the 30-year exposure period used as the basis for assessing the significance of carcinogenic risk exposure. As a result, the project generated DPM would not represent a source of sustained DPM emissions. Therefore, due to the short construction period over the 30-year exposure period, the exposure to DPM due to the project would be less than significant. Operation The project proposes to develop the site with 226 multi -family attached residential dwelling units. Therefore, the project is not anticipated be a source of toxic air contaminants and sensitive receptors would not be exposed to toxic sources of air pollution. Short -Term Construction Impacts The construction activities necessary to develop the project would generate air emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, etc. throughout construction. The project construction activities include the demolition of the existing church, church parking lot and other site improvements, grading the site, Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 40 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-126 excavation for the first level of the subterranean parking structure and the construction of the apartment building, parking structure and required site improvements. Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2. CaIEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD to estimate air pollutant emissions. The CaIEEMod program uses the EMFAC2014 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for Orange County for construction -related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2014 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculate composite emission rates for vehicles. For the proposed project the CaIEEMod, calculated the peak daily air pollutant emissions and the highest level of emissions for each of the construction phases in terms of air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD's Rule 403 The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules to reduce fugitive dust emissions during project construction and the life of the project. Project compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through the application of standard best management practices during construction and operation activities, which Include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, manage haul road dust by the use of water, cover haul vehicles, restrict vehicle speeds on on -site unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweep loose dirt from paved site access roadways, stop construction activity when wind speeds exceed 25 mph and establish a permanent ground cover on finished areas. Construction -Related Criteria Impacts The construction -related criteria pollutant emissions for each construction phase are shown in Table 5. As shown, none of the project's construction emissions would exceed regional thresholds. Therefore, project construction emissions would be less than significant. Table 5 Construction -Related Regional Pollutant Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx Co SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Site2 3.31 33.20 21.75 0.04 1.78 1.56 Off -Site; 0.08 0.44 0.59 0.00 0.20 0.05 Subtotal 3.39 33.65 22.35 0.04 1.98 1.61 Site Preparation On-SIte2 1.50 15.54 8.69 0.01 3.24 2.05 Off-Site3 0.08 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.20 0.05 Subtotal 1.58 15.59 9.28 0.02 3.45 2.11 Grading On-Site2 2.43 26.39 16.05 0.03 3.91 2.50 Off-Site3 1.81 62.69 1 .91 0.17 4.29 1.31 Subtotal 4.24 89.07 32.97 0.20 8.20 1 3.81 Building Construction On -Site' 2.12 19.19 16.85 0.03 1.12 1.05 Off-Site3 1.39 7.59 10.62 0.05 3.48 0.97 Subtotal 3.51 26.78 27.47 0.07 1 4.60 2.02 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 41 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-127 Paving On-Site2 1.12 10.84 12.26 0.02 0.58 0.53 Off-SIte3 0.08 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.23 0.06 Subtotal 1.20 10.89 12.87 0.02 0.80 0.59 Architectural Coating On-Sitez 51.34 1.53 1.82 0.00 0.09 0.09 Off-Site3 0.22 0.13 1.64 0.01 0.61 0.16 Subtotal 51.56 1.66 3.46 0.01 0.70 0.26 Total for overlapping phases" 56.27 39.32 43.79 0.10 6.11 2.87 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No %I, -UUIl c.l UJI UIVIUU VCIJIUII LV I n.3.L (2) On -site emissions from equipment operated on -site that is not operated on public roads. On -site grading and site preparation PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show mitigated values for fugitive dust for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. (3) Off -site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. (4) Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap. Construction Related Local Impacts Construction -related air emissions have the potential to exceed both State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though the pollutant emissions may not be significant and have a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The project is analyzed for potential local air quality impacts associated with construction -related fugitive dust and diesel emissions, toxic air contaminants and construction -related odor impacts. Local Air Quality Impacts from Construction The SCAQMD published a "Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds"' (LST). CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. As shown in Table 6, the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be three acres during project grading. Table 6 Maximum Number of Arrpc nicturhari Par na" Activity Equipment Number Acres/81hr-da Total Acres Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0.5 1 Excavators 3 0.5 1.5 Total for hose 2.5 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 2 0.5 1 Total for phase - - 1.5 Excavators 1 0.5 0.5 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5 Graders 1 0.5 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0.5 1.5 Total for Phase - 3 Source. South Coast AQMD, race Sheet for Applying caittMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, 2011b. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 42 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-128 The local air quality emissions from project construction activities were analyzed using the SCAQMD's Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look -up tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD. The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Central Orange County source receptor area (SRA) 17 and a disturbance value of two acres per day. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25-meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptors are the students and administrators at the Taft Elementary School located adjacent to and north of the project and residents of the existing multi- family residential dwelling units adjacent to and east of the site. Therefore, the SCAQMD Look -up tables for 25-meters was used. Table 7 shows the on -site emissions from the CaIEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 7 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Activity On -Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 33.20 21.75 1.78 1.56 Site Preparation 15.54 8.69 3.24 2.05 Grading 26.39 16.05 3.91 2.50 Building Construction 19.19 16.85 1.12 1.05 Paving 10.84 12.26 0.58 0.53 Architectural Coating 1.53 1.82 0.09 0.09 SCAQMD Thresholds 115 715 6 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No As shown in Table 7, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD's local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the project construction emissions meet the LST for construction thresholds and would be less than significant. Construction -Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions from the project would be due to diesel particulate emissions due to the operation of heavy equipment operations during construction of the project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Furthermore, construction -based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during project construction. Long -Term Operational Emissions The on -going operation of the project would increase the generation of long-term air quality emissions. This increase would mainly be due to emissions from the project -generated vehicle trips. The following Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 43 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-129 section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on -going operations of the project. Mobile Sources Mobile sources generate air emissions due to project vehicle miles traveled. Information from the traffic study was referenced to provide the input data necessary for the CalEEMod model. Emission factors for each vehicle trip was provided by the EMFAC2014 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions to calculate mobile source emissions. Area Sources Area source emissions include emissions from consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance equipment emissions include fuel combustion emissions from the operation of equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. Because specific landscape equipment fleet information was not known, CaIEEMod defaults were used to estimate the emissions from the operation of the landscaping equipment that would typically be used for a project as proposed. Energy Usage Energy usage includes air emissions from the generation of electricity and the use of natural gas by the project. The project is required to comply with 2016 Title 24 standards. Regional Air Quality Impacts The worst -case long-term operational air emissions of the project are summarized in Table 8. As shown, the long-term operational emissions of the project do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the studied emissions. Therefore, the operational air quality impacts of the project are less than significant. Table 8 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions' Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ROGs NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sourcesz 6.98 3.59 20.15 0.02 0.38 0.38 Energy Usage' 0.08 0.65 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Sources' 1.82 7.51 24.92 0.10 8.98 2.45 Total Emissions 1 8.88 11.75 45.35 0.12 9.41 2.88 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No I No I No I No I No No (1) Source: Cal EEMod Version 2016.3.2; the higher of either summer or winter emissions. (2) Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. (3) Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on -site natural gas usage. (4) Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 44 751-130 Operations -Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project -related air emissions may have a potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though the pollutant emissions may not be significant to create a regional impact to the SCAB. The project was analyzed for potential local CO emission impacts from project -generated vehicular trips and on -site operations. Local CO Emission Impacts from Project -Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is the operation of motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually Indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. To determine if the project could generate emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO "hot spots" at intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, "hot spots" potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse. The intersection in the project area with the highest traffic volume is Bristol Street at Anton Boulevard with an evening peak hour volume of 2,203 trips (Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project). The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection with a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. Therefore, as the intersection with the highest traffic volume falls far short of 100,000 vehicles, no CO "hot spot" modeling was performed for the project. As a result, the project would not have any significant long- term CO emission impact to local air quality. Local Air Quality Impacts from On -Site Operations Project -related air emissions from on -site sources such as architectural coatings, the operation of landscape equipment, on -site usage of natural gas appliances and the operation of vehicles on -site may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site; such as industrial warehouse/transfer facilities. The project is a multi -family attached residential project and does not include such uses. Therefore, due the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is warranted. The project would not generate any air emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The elementary school and the residential development west, south and east of the project, respectively, are considered sensitive land uses. Because the project would not generate any air emissions that exceed adopted emission thresholds, the sensitive receptors adjacent to the project would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and long-term operational emissions by the project would not significantly impact any sensitive receptors adjacent to or in the project vicinity. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 45 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-131 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources for odors during project construction include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement and diesel exhaust emissions from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment. The objectionable odors that would be generated during the construction process would be short-term and any odor emissions would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials (asphalt pavement) or ceasing operation of the diesel construction equipment. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some. However, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore would not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant odor impacts are anticipated during project construction. The proposed residential project, like other similar residential projects in Santa Ana, would not generate any emissions or odors that are not typically associated with residential development and impact area residents or sensitive receptors adjacent to and in close proximity to the project. The project would not have any significant odor impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The site is developed with a church, church parking lot and landscaping. There is minimal vegetation on the site and the vegetation that is present on the site consists of Introduced urban landscape materials. There are no wildlife species on the site and none of the existing introduced urban landscaping plants are candidates for a sensitive or special status species. The project would not impact wildlife or wildlife habitat. b) Have substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Because the site is developed there is no riparian habitat or other natural communities on the site. The project would not impact riparian or other natural communities. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see section "IV.b)" above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site as well as the properties surrounding the site are developed with urban uses, including an elementary school and multi -family residential development. Because the site is developed it does not serve as a migratory wildlife corridor or a wildlife nursery. The project would not impact or impede any wildlife corridors or migratory wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are introduced non-native trees on the site that are part of the landscaping that is present throughout the property. None of the existing non-native Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 46 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-132 trees are protected by a local policy or ordinance that would prohibit their removal. The project would not impact any local policies that protect biological resources, including trees. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City of Santa Ana is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project would not conflict with or impact a conservations plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. The existing church and other site improvements would be demolished to develop the project. Based on the Santa Ana General Plan°, the church is not a designated historical resource. The project would not have a historical resource impact. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. There may be resources present on the site that would could be uncovered or exposed during project grading and construction that may be considered a unique archaeological resource. As recommended in section "XVIII. a)", mitigation measure are recommended requiring a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on -site during all project -related, ground -disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet below ground surface to monitor for the presence of Tribal resources. The Tribal monitor would evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities to determine if a resource is Native American in origin or not. As required by the recommended mitigation measures in section "XVIII. a)", if archaeological features are discovered, including Tribal and non -Tribal resources, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the City of Santa Ana Planning Manager. The incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures in section "XVIII. a)" would reduce potential Tribal and non -Tribal archaeological resource impacts to less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is not presently used as a formal cemetery and has not been used as a cemetery in the past. In addition, the site is not known to have been used for any activities that have resulted in human remains being present on the property. The project would not impact human remains. VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. Information found in this section, as well as other aspects of the project's energy implications, are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this MND, including section "VII" (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and section "XVII" (Transportation) of this MND. Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element, Exhibit A-12 Historic Resources. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 47 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-133 Construction -Related Energy Consumption Estimated Energy Consumption Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with demolition, grading, the construction of utilities, paving, and building construction would include, excavators, graders, tractors/loaders/backhoes, dozers, scrapers, air compressors, cranes, forklifts, generators, pumps, welders, rollers, trenchers and pavers. The majority of the equipment would likely be diesel -fueled; however, smaller equipment, such as air compressors and forklifts may be electric, gas, or natural gas -fueled. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the construction equipment would be diesel -fueled, due to the speculative nature of specifying the amounts and types of non -diesel equipment that might be used, and the difficulties in calculating the energy, which would be consumed by this non -diesel equipment. The number of construction workers required to construct the project would vary based on the phase of construction and the activity taking place. The transportation fuel required by construction workers to travel to and from the site would depend on the total number of worker trips estimated for the duration of construction activity. A 2007 study by the California Department of Transportation (Caitrans) estimates the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles) in the year 2020 is 18.78 miles per gallon.7 Assuming construction worker vehicles have an average fuel economy consistent with the Caltrans study and each construction worker commutes an average of 20 miles a day to and from the site, the maximum 50 workers on -site during each phase of the project is estimated to consume approximately 53 gallons of gasoline a day. Assuming all 50 construction workers are employed at the site for a year (52 weeks), the fuel used by construction workers commuting to the site is approximately 345 barrels (13,780 gallons) of gasoline and represents less than 0.00010 percent of the statewide transportation gasoline consumption in 2016, which is the latest year that data is available.8 Construction equipment fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, natural gas) would be provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. Electricity would be supplied by the local utility provider (e.g., Southern California Edison) via existing connections. A temporary water supply, primarily for fugitive dust suppression and street sweeping, would also be supplied by the local provider (e.g., City). Electricity used during construction to provide temporary power for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers, etc.) inside temporary construction trailers and for outdoor lighting when necessary for general construction activity would generally not result in a substantial increase in on -site electricity use. Electricity use during construction would be variable depending on lighting needs and the use of electric -powered equipment and would be temporary for the duration of construction activities. Thus, electricity use during construction would generally be considered negligible. Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance The project would utilize construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on - and off -road equipment. CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other TACs. Compliance with the above anti -idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient 12007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, California Department of Transportation, Table 1, (2006). 'California 2015 Transportation gasoline consumption - 348,830 thousand barrels; Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 48 751-134 use of construction -related energy and minimize or eliminate wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. With respect to solid waste, CALGreen requires 65% of most construction and demolition waste be diverted from a landfill. The project would generate various types of debris during project demolition and construction. Concrete and asphalt that is removed from the site during demolition can either be ground and reused on the site as base material for driveways or sold to a recycler. The City of Santa Ana has a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to recycle, compost, provide special waste disposal, and provide public information programs. As required by Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) and the City's SRRE, the solid waste generated by the project would be recycled and the materials that cannot be recycled hauled to either the Frank R. Bowerman landfill or the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea. Project compliance with CALGreen and the city's SRRE would reduce and conserve energy consumption regarding solid waste recycling during both project construction and the life of the project. Anticipated Energy Consumption The daily operation of the project would generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, and water supply, as well as generating wastewater requiring conveyance, treatment and disposal off -site, and solid waste requiring off -site disposal. Southern California Edison is the electrical purveyor in the City of Santa Ana and would provide electricity to the project. The Southern California Gas Company is the natural gas purveyor in the City of Santa Ana would provide natural gas to the project. Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance The California Energy Commission (CEC) fi and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 2 reduce energy consumption in the state. P; as CALGreen. The purpose of CALGreen enhancing the design and construction of positive environmental impact and encoui categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Er Material conservation and resource efficient CALGreen is mandatory for the constructic mandatory measures for new residential include energy efficiency, water conservati( environmental quality.10 CALGreen was r 'st adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential t, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to in 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to is to "improve public health, safety and general welfare by buildings through the use of building concepts having a aging sustainable construction practices in the following ergy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) ;y; and (5) Environmental quality."9 As of January 1, 2011, 1 of all new buildings in the state. CALGreen establishes nd non-residential buildings. Such mandatory measures n, material conservation, planning and design and overall Lost recently updated in 2016 to Include new mandatory measures for residential as well as nonresidential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2017.11 The project would be required by the City to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 24 and CALGreen. With respect to solid waste, the project is required to comply with applicable regulations, including those pertaining to waste reduction and recycling. Waste haulers serving the project would divert project -generated municipal waste in accordance with applicable city ordinances. 9 California Building Standards Commission, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, (2016). 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 49 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-135 Energy Conservation: Project Design Features The project would be designed to include green building, energy saving, and water saving measures and other sustainability features. Consistent with the CALGreen, the project would be required to meet and comply with the residential mandatory measures that include water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, environmental quality, etc. As such, the project would be designed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Estimated Energy Consumption The long-term operation of the project would result In transportation energy use primarily for residents that commute to and from their place of employment. Transportation fuels, primarily gasoline, would be provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. As discussed previously, in 2016, California consumed a total of 348,830 thousand barrels of gasoline for transportation, which is part of the total annual consumption nationwide of 3,410,051 thousand barrels by the transportation sector.12 Project - related vehicles would require a fraction of a percent of the total state's transportation fuel consumption. A 2008 study by Caltrans determined that the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles) in 2020 would be 18.78 miles per gallon." Alternative -Fueled Vehicles Alternative -fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles could be used by some project residents. The use of these types of alternative fueled vehicles would reduce the overall consumption of gasoline by the project. The effect is anticipated to be minimal in today's current vehicle market due to the relatively few number of alternative vehicles that are in use. According to the Los Angeles Times, alternative - fueled vehicles make up approximately 2.3% of all vehicles registered in California.14 The above transportation fuel estimates for the project do not account for alternative -fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles, which are more energy efficient vehicles. Thus, the assessment is a conservative estimate of transportation fuel consumption. The project would not have any wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during either project construction of the life of the project because the project would be required to comply with all applicable state energy conservation measures. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The project would be required by the city to comply with all applicable CALGreen energy conservation measures, including California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code. The project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 12 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F3: Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2016, https://www.ela.gov/state/seds/sep-Suel/html/pdf/fuel-mg.pdf. 11 California Department of Transportation, 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast (June 2009). 14 Los Angeles Times, Electric, hybrid car sales up, California auto emissions down, May 22, 2014, http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-sales-up-auto-emissions-down-20140521- story.html. Accessed August 2014. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 50 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-136 substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical report was prepared for the project.15 A copy of the geotechnical report is attached in Appendix B. The site, like the majority of southern California, is located in a seismically active area. The San Joaquin Hills fault zone is located approximately 2 miles to the west and the closest known fault to the site. Ground shaking may occur along other active faults in the region. The closest known surface expression of active faulting to the site is the Newport -Inglewood fault that is located approximately six miles southwest of the site. The likelihood of surface fault rupture at the site during the life of the project is low.16 The project is not located in a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.17 While there are faults in the region that could generate moderate to significant ground shaking at the site, the incorporation of the recommendations in the geotechnical report regarding design and the construction of the apartment building, parking structure and other site improvements would reduce potential fault impacts to less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is located in southern California and a seismically active area, there is the potential for ground motion at the site. The geotechnical report that was prepared for the project identifies measures to protect the project from strong seismic ground shaking. As with all projects in Santa Ana, the design and construction of all proposed site improvement must comply with the current California Building Code (CBC). Project compliance with the CBC and the incorporation of all measures recommended in the geotechnical report to reduce seismic hazards as deemed applicable by the City Engineer would reduce potential strong ground shaking impacts to the project to less than significant. iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a state designated Zone of Required Investigation for Liquefaction.18 Based on the geotechnical report and the liquefaction analysis conducted for the site, the sandy soil 25 feet below ground surface is susceptible to liquefaction during major earthquake layers below approximately 25 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the project would be impacted by liquefaction. The geotechnical report recommends measures for incorporation into the design and construction of the project to reduce liquefaction impacts. The City Engineer would, based on the recommendations in the geotechnical report recommend measures for incorporation into the design and construction of the project to reduce liquefaction impacts. The incorporation of recommended mitigation measures by the City Engineer to protect the project from liquefaction would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to less than significant. Iv. Landslides? No Impact. The project site and the area adjacent to and immediately surrounding the site is basically flat. There are no hills or other topographic relief features either on or adjacent to the site that would impact the project due to a landslide. The project site is not located within an area that is designated by the State of California as a Zone of Required Investigation for Earthquake -Induced Landslides.19 The project would not be exposed to or impacted by a landslide. 15 Geolechnical Engineering Evaluation Report, Sunflower Apartments, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Twining, April 30, 2018. 16 Ibid, page 3. 11 Ibid 18 Ibid, page 5. 19 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report, Sunflower Apartments, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Twining, April 30, 2018, page 6. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 51 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-137 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The City would require the grading and construction contractor to install and maintain all applicable City required short-term construction soil erosion control measures to reduce and minimize soil erosion impacts throughout project grading and construction. The contractor would be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify all Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be incorporated into the project prior to the start of grading and maintained to completion of all construction activities to reduce and minimize soil erosion. The City has standard soil erosion protection measures that the contractor would be required to install and maintain throughout grading and construction to minimize off -site soil erosion. The requirement by the City for the contractor to install all applicable mandated soil erosion control measures into the project prior to the start of construction and throughout project construction would minimize and reduce potential soil erosion impacts to less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known unstable geologic or soil conditions either on or adjacent to the site that would impact the project, other than liquefaction that is discussed in section "Vl.a.iii)" above. The incorporation of recommended measures in the soils report by the City Engineer to protect the project from liquefaction would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to less than significant. The project would not be impacted by unstable soil conditions. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the geotechnical report that was prepared for the site the near surface on -site soils consist of moderately to highly expansive clay that has the potential for damage to site improvements due to heaving of the underlying SollS.20 The geotechnical report recommends measures for incorporation into the design and construction of the project to reduce potential expansive soil impacts. The City Engineer would, based on the geotechnical report, recommend measures for incorporation into the design and construction of the project to reduce expansive soil impacts. The incorporation of mitigation measures recommended by the City Engineer to protect the project from expansive soil impacts on would reduce impacts to less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site is served by an existing underground public sewer system. The City would require the project to ccinnect to and be served by the existing Santa Ana public sewer system that presently serves the site and not allow the project to use septic tanks for on -site wastewater disposal. The project would not have any septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal impacts. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological resources in the city. The project site was disturbed in the past during construction of the existing church, church parking lot and other site improvements. Because the site has been disturbed and paleontological resources are not known to exist in Santa Ana, it is unlikely that paleontological resources would be uncovered during project construction. Potential paleontological impacts by the project would be less than significant. 20 Geolechnical Engineering Evaluation Report, Sunflower Apartments, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Twining, April 30, 2018, paqe 7. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 52 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-138 Vill. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State's greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. City of Santa Ana The City of City of Santa Ana adopted the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015. The CAP demonstrates the City's commitment to improving quality of life by reducing carbon pollution and energy use. As stated in the CAP, the City adopted emissions reduction goals of 15 percent below the baseline year 2008 by 2020 and 30 percent below the baseline year 2008 by 2035 for community - wide emissions. The CAP includes measures to reduce energy consumption, vehicle miles, water use or waste; or to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels. Thresholds of Significance Neither the City of Santa Ana, the SCAQMD, nor the State CEQA Guidelines Amendments has adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a project's GHG emissions. To determine whether the GHG emissions of the project are significant, this analysis uses the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. The project would be subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code and 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to reduce project -related greenhouse gas emissions. Methodology The CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 software model was used to calculate the GHG emissions from all phases of the project for the year 2022, which is the scheduled date of project completion. The project's emissions were compared to the tier 3 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year for all land uses. Area Sources Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 53 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-139 Energy Usage Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. Mobile Sources Mobile sources include the emissions from the vehicle miles generated by the project. The vehicle trips of the project were analyzed based on project trip generation in the traffic report. Solid Waste Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of solid waste from the project as well as the GHG emissions from the solid waste once it is hauled to a landfill. AB 341 requires that 75 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills by 2020. Water Water includes the potable water that would be used by the residents and landscaping based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to filter and transport the water to the site. Construction The construction -related GHG emissions are based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended by the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The construction -related GHG emissions were calculated by CaIEEMod and are shown in Table 5 above. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions The GHG emissions have been calculated based on the parameters described above for opening year 2022. A summary of the project's unmitigated GHG emissions are shown in Table 9. As shown, the subtotal for the project's emissions are calculated to be 2,598.20 MTCO2e per year. According to the above threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would potentially occur if the GHG emissions created from the on -going operations exceed the threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. As shown in Table 9, the project would not exceed the tier 3 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year, therefore the project would not have a significant impact to global climate change. The project is also subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code. On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011. The Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school buildings. The California Green Building Standards Code does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 65 percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 54 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-140 Table 9 Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions' 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric TonsNear) Category Bio-0O2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Area Sources2 0.00 52.66 52.66 0.00 0.00 53.05 u Energy Usage 0.00 761.65 761.65 0.03 0.01 764.70 ,Mobile Sources° 0.00 1,583.88 1,583.88 0.06 0.00 1,585.49 e Wastes 21.10 0.00 21.10 1.25 0.00 52.28 Water6 4.67 93.95 98.62 0.48 0.01 114.33 Construction? 0.00 28.26 28.26 0.00 0.00 28.35 (Total Emissions 25.77 2,520.40 2,546.18 1.83 0.02 2,598.20 tiSCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,000 xceeds Threshold? NO (1) Version 2016.3.2 for Opening Year 2022. (2) Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. (3) Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. (4) Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. (5) Solid waste Includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. (6) Water Includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. (7) Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate. The California Green Building Standards Code (code section in parentheses) requires: • Water Efficiency and Conservation [Indoor Water Use (4.303.1)]. • Water Efficiency and Conservation [Outdoor Water Use (4.304.1)]. • Construction Waste Reduction of at least 65 percent (4.408.1). • Materials pollution control (4.504.1-4.504.6). • Installer and Special Inspector Qualifications (702.1-702.2). The project is estimated to generate approximately 2,598.20 MTCO2e per year and below the SCAQMD draft local agency tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The project complies with the reduction goals of the City's Climate Action Plan, AB-32 and SB-32. The project also complies with the applicable Green Building Standards and the City of Santa Ana's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan). Therefore, the project would not have any significant GHG impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015 and in the CAP adopted emissions reduction goals of 15 percent below the baseline year 2008 by 2020 and 30 percent below the baseline year 2008 by 2035 for community -wide emissions. The City has identified emission measures in the CAP that can reduce GHG emissions from community -wide and municipal operations. While none of the measures are directly relevant to the project, the project does not conflict with any of the measures. Another approach to identifying potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations is to examine General Plan provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 55 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-141 The Santa Ana General Plan lists policies that reduce GHG emissions. However, the policies prescribe actions to be taken by the City, and not measures to be implemented by a project applicant. The California Governor issued Executive Order 5-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets: • 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels • 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels • 2050; Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap, which were phased in starting in 2012. The project's estimated GHG emissions meet the threshold for compliance with Executive Order 5-3- 05. The project's emissions also comply with the goals of AB 32; which is also the goal of the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan. Because the project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD the project would also be meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB-32. Furthermore, the majority of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the project would be required to comply with the regulations as they come into effect. At a level of 2,598.20 MTCO2e per year, the project's GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD tier 3 draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types and in compliance with applicable goals of the City's Climate Action Plan, AB-32 and SB-32. The project would comply with all applicable Green Building Standards and City of Santa Ana's policies regarding sustainability as required by the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not impact and conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)21 was prepared for the project site. A copy of the Phase I ESA is attached in Appendix C. A building permit for the construction of the church was issued in 1972. There is the potential for asbestos containing materials (AGMs) and/or lead based paint to be present in the church as the commercial use of ACMs and lead based paint were banned by the federal government in 1978 and after the construction of the church. Asbestos and lead based paint surveys were not included in the Phase I ESA. It is likely that ACMs exist in the church since it was constructed prior to 1987 when ACMs were banned for use. If present, the demolition of the church could result in the release of asbestos and or lead based paint emissions. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow state regulations contained in California Code of Regulations Sections 1529, and 341.6 through 341.14 as implemented by SCAQMD Rule 1403 to ensure that asbestos removed during demolition of the existing church is transported and disposed of 21 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Sound Church, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, Apex Companies, San Diego, CA, February 27, 2018. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 56 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-142 at an appropriate facility. The contractor and hauler of the material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest that details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue a demolition permit until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. Lead could also exist in the church since it was construction prior to 1978. Thus, lead -based materials may be present. The lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provide regulations related to the handling and disposal of lead -based products. Federal regulations to manage and control exposure to lead -based paint are described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and state regulations related to lead are provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as Implemented by Cal -OSHA. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage and disposal of lead - containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead -based materials. Cal/OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard requires project applicants to develop and implement a lead compliance plan when lead -based paint would be disturbed during construction or demolition activities. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to lead during construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires 24-hour notification if more than 100 square feet of lead -based paint would be disturbed. The City requires that prior to the issuance of a demolition permits for the demolition and removal of any pre-1979 structures within Santa Ana, the applicant must submit documentation to the City Building Department that asbestos and lead -based paint issues are not applicable to the property, or that appropriate actions would be taken to correct any asbestos or lead -based paint issues prior to the development of the site in conformance with the regulations of the SCAQMD and the State of California, Division of Occupational Health and Safety. The compliance by the project developer with all applicable laws and regulations to safely and properly remove any lead -based paint and/or asbestos from the church prior to its demolition would ensure that ACM and lead based paint impacts would be less than significant. As stated in the Phase I ESA, there are issues of concern associated with historical agricultural operations on the site.22 If present, agricultural chemicals, such as Organochlorinated pesticides and/or herbicides, could impact construction workers during demolition and construction activities. Because soil contamination tests have not been performed there is a potential for agricultural chemical impacts to occur, if present. The following measure shall be implemented to reduce pesticide and/or herbicide impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit of any existing on -site improvements the developer shall submit proof to the City's satisfaction that one of the following two options to reduce pesticide and/or herbicide levels to meet accepted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and County of Orange Health Care Agency (COHCA) requirements have been completed. • The on -site soils shall be tested for the presence of pesticides and/or herbicides. 22 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Sound Church, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, Apex Companies, San Diego, CA, February 27, 2018, page 17. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 57 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-143 • Remove and dispose of the soil from the site where pesticides and/or herbicides are detected above regulated levels. Through a corrective grading process, which consists of digging out soil containing pesticides and/or herbicides along with a large quantity of underlying soil that does not contain pesticide concentrations, followed by further testing to confirm whether the resulting concentrations of pesticides in soil require further management as either a California hazardous waste or concern based on levels above the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). Compliance by the project contractor with all existing applicable state and county laws and regulations for the survey and proper removal and disposal of any on -site hazardous materials and implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would reduce potential hazardous material impacts to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials to less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. There are no uses or activities associated with the project that would create or release hazardous materials into the environment. The project would not have any hazard impacts to the public or environment involving the release of a hazardous material. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Taft Elementary school is located adjacent to and north of the site and the closest school to the project. There are no schools proposed for development within one -quarter mile of the project. The hazardous materials that would be used during project construction (fuel, lubricants, paint) and the janitorial/maintenance cleaning materials that would be used to clean and maintain the apartments, swimming pool, fitness center, leasing area, etc. would not impact Taft Elementary school. Any hazardous materials that would be used and stored on -site during project construction are required by law to be stored and locked in a safe area. The project contractor is responsible for the safe use and storage of all hazardous materials during project construction. The continued use and storage of janitorial and building maintenance materials that are current used on -site would continue to be used and stored in a safe manner. Similarly, the use and storage of janitorial and building maintenance materials for the proposed mixed -use building would also be stored and used in compliance with all applicable state and local laws for these types of cleaning materials. Project compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations for janitorial/maintenance cleaning materials would not have any hazardous emission impacts. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed as a hazardous material site on the "Cortese" list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment with the development of the site per Government Code Section 65962.5. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 58 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-144 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, will the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or residing in the project areal No Impact. The closest airport to the site is John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is approximately one mile southeast of the project. JWA has an adopted airport land use compatibility plan that is called the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The AELUP is a land use plan for the orderly growth for JWA and the surrounding area. The AELUP includes noise impact zones, clear zones and height restriction zones associated with JWA. The project is not located within an Airport Impact Zone, Noise Impact Zone, Clear Zone, or Height Restriction Zone of John Wayne Airport. However, there is a height restriction overlay zone of 200 feet above the ground of all property throughout Orange County for airport safety. Thus, even for projects that lie outside of the Clear or Accident Potential Zones and 60 dB CNEL contours for JWA the height restriction is applicable. The maximum height of the tallest building on the site is 75' in height and the parapet and elevator tower increase the total building height to 47' — 53' and less than the 200' height criteria for JWA. The project is not located within the boundary of the John Wayne Airport land use plan and would not exceed the 200' height limit of buildings within the airport planning area. The project would not have any safety impacts to or impacted by the operations at John Wayne Airport. Because the airport is more than a mile southeast of the site the project residents would not be significantly impacted by any noise associated with the on -going operations of the airport. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. All of the proposed improvements are located on private property. Although Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street, which are adjacent to and south and west of the project, respectively are used as emergency evacuation routes for the area they are not adopted emergency routes. The project would not interfere with or impact the ability of these two roadways to continue to serve as emergency routes for the project area. The project would not impact any emergency evacuation routes. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. Based on the analysis in section "XIX.a)" in this MND, the City of Santa Ana is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. See section "XIX.a)" for a detailed discussion and analysis. Because the project is not within any designated wildland fire areas the project would not be exposed to or impacted by a wildland fire. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)23 and a Preliminary Hydrology Study24 were prepared for the project. Both reports are included in Appendix D. Silt could be generated from the site during site demolition, project grading and the construction of the project, especially if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The City would require the project developer to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS618030 (Permit). The SWPPP would require the contractor to implement Best 23 City of Santa Ana/Santa Ana Region Priority Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, California, C&V 24 Drnliminon, LJvArnlnnv Cl nrly A91 CnnFlmn,or Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Legacy Sunflower, 651 iq, November 2018. C&V Consultina. November Page 59 751-145 Available Technology Economically Achievable measures to reduce and eliminate storm water pollution from all construction activity through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of the storm water that would be discharged from the site during all construction activity. The SWPPP would require the contractor to identify, construct, and implement the storm water pollution prevention measures and BMPs that are necessary to reduce pollutants that are present in the storm water that is discharged from the site during construction. The SWPPP would include specific BMPs that must be installed and implemented prior to the start of construction. The installation and maintenance of all required BMPs by the contractor during construction would reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant. The project developer would be required by the City to have a WQMP approved prior to the start of grading. As noted above, the project applicant has prepared a preliminary WQMP (Appendix D) that identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used on -site to control anticipated pollutants during the life of the project from entering the storm water runoff from the site. The types of pollutants that are anticipated to be generated during the life of the project include suspended solids, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, oil and grease and trash and debris. The State required WQMP identifies the measures that would be included in the project including the use of a retention/detention basin, storm water clarifier, and catch basins with BMPs. The WQMP proposes to install a Modular Wetlands Biofiltration System near the southwest corner of the project site. The Modular Wetlands structure would pre -treat all of the surface water runoff of the project, including all parking runoff, on -site streets, building roofs, etc. The Modular Wetlands structure would treat the 851h percentile 24-hr storm event runoff. Once treated, the runoff would be directed by a proposed on -site storm drain collection system to an existing off -site storm drain catch basin in Sunflower Avenue and to the County of Orange Santa Ana — Delhi Channel that extends along the west project boundary and eventually drains Into the ocean. The City must review and approve the WQMP for compliance with State law prior to the issuance of a building permit. The installation of and the regular maintenance of a required SWPPP and WQMP would reduce storm water runoff pollutants generated from the project site during both project construction and the life of the project to less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would require the use of water for dust suppression during project demolition, grading and construction in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. The amount of water that would be required to control dust during grading and construction would be minimal and not significantly impact existing groundwater supplies. Once completed, the project would require potable water to serve the project residents, landscape irrigation and provide fire flow. The project site currently has open space available for water percolation. Currently approximately 34% (1.21 acres) of the site is pervious and allows water percolation and the remaining 66% (2.38 acres) of the site is impervious due to the existing church, surface parking lot and other hardscape improvements. Once constructed, the project would be approximately 74% impervious and 26% pervious for continued water percolation. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 60 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-146 The project proposes approximately 0.92 acres (40,075 square feet) of pervious area throughout the site to allow surface water to percolate into the local soil. The project would result in an 8% (12,632 square feet) reduction of pervious area on the site for water percolation and absorption compared to the existing condition. The City has stated it has an adequate water supply to meet the water needs of the project and the reduction in pervious open space for local water percolation would not significantly deplete and impact groundwater supplies. The project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section "X.a)" above, silt could be generated from the site during site demolition, grading and construction of the project, especially if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The City would require the project developer to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS618030 (Permit). The SWPPP would require the contractor to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable measures to reduce and eliminate storm water pollution from all construction activity through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Implementation of the required SWPPP prior to and throughout project construction would reduce and minimize potential siltation impacts. As also discussed in section "X.a)" above, the project developer would be required by the City to have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved prior to the start of grading. The WQMP would identify the BMPs that would be used on -site to control anticipated pollutants during the life of the project from entering the storm water runoff from the site. The types of pollutants that are anticipated to be generated during the life of the project include suspended solids, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, oil and grease and trash and debris. The State required WQMP Identifies the measures that would be included in the project including the use of a retention/detention basin, storm water clarifier, and catch basins with BMPs. The implementation by the developer of the required SWPPP and WQMP would reduce potential erosion or siltation impacts to less than significant. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section "IX.c)" above, the project would not alter the existing drainage patterns on the site. The existing drainage patterns on the site would be maintained and project flows would continue to be south to Sunflower Avenue. Maintaining the existing on -site drainage pattern along with the proposed biofiltration systems would prevent flooding impacts on or off the site. III Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on hydrologic calculations in the hydrology report, project generated storm water runoff from the site would increase for the 2-year, 25-year and 100-year storm events. Table 10 shows the increase in surface water runoff from the project compared to the existing condition. As shown, the project would increase the amount of surface water generated Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 61 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-147 from the site due to the increase of impervious surface area on the site. Although the project would increase the quantity or surface water runoff that would be generated, the project proposes to retain the increased volume of runoff on -site and incrementally release the runoff over time to equal the existing condition. Therefore, project generated runoff would not exceed or Impact the capacity of the existing downstream storm water drainage system in Sunflower Avenue and the Santa Ana - Delhi storm channel. Table 10 Peak Flow Comparison Summary Storm Event Existing Condition (cfs) Proposed Condition (cfs) Difference (cfs) 2-year 2.5 2.75 0.25 25- ear 6.02 6.59 0.57 100- ear 7.79 8.59 0.80 The project would be required to treat surface water runoff prior to its discharge to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality requirements and provide safeguards that surface water runoff would not provide sources of polluted runoff. As discussed in section "IX.a)" above, a preliminary WQMP has been prepared and states that a proposed Modular Wetlands Biofiltration System would be installed to remove and prevent most project generated pollutants from the storm water prior to being discharge from the site into the local storm drain system in Sunflower Avenue adjacent to and south of the site. The installation and maintenance of the BMPs in compliance with the preliminary WQMP would reduce and filter most project runoff pollutants. The project would not impact surface water quality. iv Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant. The project is not located within a designated flood hazard zone. The project does not propose and would not alter the existing drainage patterns on the site or any other flows that would impede or redirect any flood flows. The existing drainage patterns on the site would be maintained and project generated stormwater flows would continue south to Sunflower Avenue. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No impact. There are no bodies of water adjacent to or in close proximity to the site that could impact the project due to a seiche. The site is approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and approximately 35' above mean sea level. The Santa Ana General Plan does not identify any portion of the city at risk due to a tsunami. There are no hillsides or other geotechnical conditions either on or adjacent to the project that would inundate the site due to a mudflow. The project would not be impacted by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project developer has prepared a Preliminary WQMP25 and the project developer would be required by the city to install and implement all proposed water quality collection and surface water runoff treatment measures listed in the WQMP. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct water quality control measures mandated by the state. 25 City of Santa Ana/Santa Ana Region Priority Project, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Legacy Sunflower, 651 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, California, C&V Consulting, November 2018. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 62 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-148 The City of Santa Ana has an adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)26. The UWMP provides a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands and provides an assessment of the City of Santa Ana's water resource needs. The UWMP provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five-year Increments and identifies water supplies needs to meet existing and future demands. The City gets approximately 71 percent of its annual water demand from local groundwater.27 The City supplements its water supply with Imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and recycled water.28 The UWMP analyzed the future water demand for the city based on land use type, including single- family, multi -family, commercial, institutional, industrial, etc. The UWMP also analyzed its future water supply based on the reliability of its existing sources of water Including groundwater, MWD, recycling, etc. Based on the UWMP the available supply of water would meet the projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. The project would continue to allow rainfall to percolate into the on -site soils and recharge the local groundwater. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the UWMP and the City's future sources of water supply. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The 3.59-acre project is an infill site surrounded by residential use and an elementary school. The project would not divide the established communities adjacent to the site. The project would not impact an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is designated Low Density Residential (LR-7) land use by the Santa Ana General Plan and zoned Single -Family Residence (R1). Because the 226 residential units proposed for the site are not consistent with the Low Density Residential land use and R1 zoning, the project requires a General Plan Amendment to Urban Neighborhood and a zone change to Specific Development (SD) to allow the development of the project as proposed. The Santa Ana General Plan identifies the intent of the Urban Neighborhood land use29 as follows: "The Urban Neighborhood (UN) land use designation applies to primarily residential areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools and small parks. The Urban Neighborhood allows for a mix of residential uses and housing types, such as mid to low rise multiple family, townhouses and single-family dwellings; with some opportunities for live -work, neighborhood serving retail and service, public spaces and use, and other amenities. Either vertical or horizontal integration of uses Is permitted based on zoning standards, with an emphasis on tying together the uses with pedestrian linkages and street frontages. Street connectivity is desirable, allowing for a high degree of walkability, transit options, and other forms of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The intensity standard for the Urban Neighborhood ranges from a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 to 1.5; with residential density based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning development standards." 2e Santa Ana 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016. 27 Santa Ana 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016, page 3-8. 28 ]bid, page 3-1. 29 City of Santa Ana General Plan, Land Use Element, page A-23. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 63 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-149 Based on the allowed FAR of 0.5 to 1.5, the 3.59-acre site allows residential development totaling a minimum of 78,190 square feet to a maximum of 234,571 square feet. The project proposes a total of 185,356 square feet of residential use, which results in a FAR of 1.19 and within the allowable FAR. The project proposes 226 units on 3.59-acres with a density of 63 units/acre. Other approved projects in Santa Ana within the Urban Neighborhood land use designation range from a density of 20.57 units/acre for the Santa Ana Collection project to 60.6 units/acre for the Bridging the Aqua project. Therefore, the proposed project is similar to and not out of character with other projects that have been approved by the city in the Urban Neighborhood land use designation. The project meets the general intent of the UN land use designation by providing multi -family units along with open space and other amenities within the project site. The project is located adjacent to Sunflower Avenue that has mass transit and four bus stops within 500 feet of the site to allow project residents access to mass transit. Sidewalks adjacent to the site allow other alternative forms of transportation for the residents including pedestrian and bicycle access to commercial areas in the Immediate vicinity. In addition to the UN land use, the goals and policies of the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element that are applicable to the project are listed below. Promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. Policy 1.5 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. Goal 2 Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Policy 2.10 Support new development, which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. Goal 5 Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. Policy 5.5 Encourage development, which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. Policy 5.11 Encourage development, which does not generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous materials. Policy 5.12 Provide appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from a development site. The project is consistent with the listed goals and policies that encourage the development of residential projects in Santa Ana that meet the needs of the community, provides a medium density residential project for residents that want multi -family units, compatible with the surrounding land uses, does not generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous materials and includes measures as part of the project to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the project. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 64 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-150 Based on the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the purpose and intent of the Specific Development30 zone is: "The Specific Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by: (1) Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on the proper planning and development of adjacent and nearby properties. (2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof be determined and protected. (3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and legislation as may in the judgment of the city be required for the systematic execution of the general plan. (4) Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved. (5) Insuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces." The project, including the number of residential units building setbacks, amount of open space, building height and other project design features would be established by the SD Zone. The project design and development standards meet the purpose of the SD zone by providing a project that is consistent with the urban design in the area and throughout Santa Ana. The project meets the aesthetic development standards of the City and other City design requirements and would be compatible with adjacent surrounding land uses. The project is consistent with and meets several of the goals and policies of the General Plan for new residential development in the UN land use and SD zone. The project would not have any significant land use impacts with the approval of the requested UN land use and Specific Development zone. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Santa Ana General Plan does not identify any locally important minerals either on or adjacent to the site. There are no mining activities either on the site or on any of the properties adjacent to and surrounding the site. The project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource or impact mineral resources. 30 Santa Ana Municipal Code Sec 41-593 1 - Purpose and Intent Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 65 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-151 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. See Response to section "Xll.a)" above. XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Noise report31 was prepared for the project. A copy of the noise report is attached in Appendix E. Temporary Noise The existing noise levels on the site and the noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site would increase temporarily during project construction. Short-term construction noise would be generated during demolition of the existing church, church parking lot and other site improvements to grade the site, excavate for the one level of subterranean parking, construct the residential building and construct the other proposed site improvements. Noise would be generated by construction workers commuting to the site, the delivery of materials and supplies to the site, the operation of on -site electrical construction equipment, etc. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on the ambient noise levels both on the site and the adjacent surrounding communities. Noise generated by the equipment that would be used for demolition and construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The existing noise -sensitive uses in the immediate project vicinity would be exposed to increased noise levels from the on -site construction activities. In typical construction projects, including the proposed project, the loudest noise generally occurs during demolition and grading activities because they involve the largest pieces of construction equipment. The maximum noise levels that are generated by the construction equipment that would be used during project construction are shown in Table 11. The construction equipment noise levels shown in Table 12 are maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Table 11 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Rock Drills 83-99 96 Jack Hammers 75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 Pumps 74-84 80 Legacy Sunflower Project, Noise Impact Analysis, Gandinni, January 23, 2019. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 66 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-152 Dozers 77-90 85 Scrapers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks 83-94 88 Cranes 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 Rollers 75-82 80 Tractors 77-82 80 Front -End Loaders 77-90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81-90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81-90 86 Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 81-87 86 The existing school adjacent to and north of the site as well as the multi -family developments east, south (The Enclave), southwest (Avenue of the Arts) and west of the project may be temporarily affected by short-term noise impacts associated with project construction activities Including workers commuting to the site, delivery of construction materials, demolition, ground clearing, excavation, grading, and building activities. However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. The City's Noise Ordinance does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Rather, the Noise Ordinance establishes allowable hours of construction. Section 18-314 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property from the noise limitations of the Municipal Code, provided that construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays. All project construction activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-314. A likely worst -case construction noise scenario was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The construction equipment used was based on the project's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis default construction equipment list that is identified in the CalEEMod modeling (Ganddini Group, Inc., 2019). Demolition The noise modeling for the demolition activities included the use of two (2) dozers, three (3) excavators, and a concrete saw all operating between 15 and 200 feet from the northern property line. The existing concrete wall along the project's eastern boundary and the wall along the northern property line of the multi -family development (The Enclave) south of Sunflower Avenue would provide 5 dB of noise reduction, which was accounted for in the noise modeling. The noise levels at the adjacent surrounding noise sensitive land uses during project demolition are shown in Table 12. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 67 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-153 Table 12 Demolition Noise Levels Location Leg Lmax Playfields at school adjacent to the northern property line 88.8 92.1 Residential adjacent to the eastern property line 72.2 74.2 Residential property line 140 feet to the south 66 69 Residential property line 145 feet to the west 72.6 75.6 Residential property line 225 feet to the southwest 67.9 71 Grading The noise modeling for the on -site grading activities includes the use of a grader, a tractor, an excavator, a front-end loader, a dozer and a backhoe with all pieces of equipment operating between 25 and 350 feet from the project property line. The existing concrete wall along the project's eastern boundary and the wall along the northern property line of the multi -family development (The Enclave) south of Sunflower Avenue would provide 5 dB of noise reduction, which was accounted for in the modeling. The noise levels at the adjacent surrounding noise sensitive land uses during project grading are shown in Table 13. Table 13 Project Grading Noise Levels Location Leg Lmax Playfields at school adjacent to the northern property line 87.3 91 Residential adjacent to the eastern property line 82.3 86 Residential property line 140 feet to the south 67.8 69.6 Residential property line 145 feet to west 72.6 74.4 Residential property line 225 feet to the southwest 69.7 71 Although construction noise would have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing within the project vicinity, all construction noise would occur during the hours allowed by Santa Ana Municipal Code Section A-314. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered less than significant. However, to be conservative and reduce construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors as much as feasible, the following construction noise mitigation measures are recommended. Mitigation Measure No. 2 During all project site excavation and grading on -site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Mitigation Measure No. 4 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 68 751-154 Mitigation Measure No. 5 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 6 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. Ambient Noise Noise Fundamentals Sound is a pressure wave created by a moving or vibrating source that travels through an elastic medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in extreme circumstances, hearing impairment. The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, the "A -weighted" noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A -weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA. From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, which quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubled traffic volume, would increase the noise levels by 3 dBA; halving of the energy would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Figure 15 shows the relationship of various noise levels to commonly experienced noise events. Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA Leq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. For example, Leq(3) would represent a 3-hour average. When no period is specified, a one -hour average is assumed. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 69 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-155 MPhil Martin&Associates, Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA Jet Take Off 100ft a Rock Group soft Conversational Speech ► > ► ► l ILh-I t,Ltl 11, lC1 I ��. 11 ! �i[IofiGl '� li'_LIt1 Library tlif l' Ila V' Bedroom ooO cy 1661►F 140 dBA 130 i Firecrackers 120 Jackhammer 110 =`"s 100411ii 90 Noisy Workr i1i� 80 70 60 1 i i , Business So Office 10 Source: Bruel & Kjaer 2001 Figure 15 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response 751-156 Page 70 Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day -Night Average Noise Level (Ldn). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Ldn is a very similar 24-hour average measure that weights only the nighttime hours. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA; a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud. This definition is recommended by the California Department of Transportation's Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013). Ambient Noise Measurements The existing, or ambient, noise levels in the project area were taken to document the ambient noise levels in the project area. The short-term noise measurements included four (4) 10-minute daytime measurements sting that were taken between 12:18 PM and 1:36 PM on January 18, 2019. The locations of the four noise measurements are shown on Figure 16. A summary or the short-term ambient noise levels are shown in Table 14. As shown, the ambient noise levels range between 55.9 and 71 dBA 4q. The dominant noise sources in the project area were from motor vehicles traveling on Sunflower Avenue, Flower Street, and other surrounding roadways and a school bus back-up alarm. Table 14 Short -Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) Daytime Site Location Time Started Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) NM1 12:18 PM 55.9 78.7 46.3 58.1 53.6 50.8 49.5 NM2 12:46 PM 71.0 80.2 49.7 78.5 77.1 71.7 65.0 NM3 1:05 PM 69.6 81.0 48.8 76.8 74.2 70.5 66.3 NM4 1:26PM 58.5 75.0 50.6 63.3 60.8 58.9 56.8 Regulations Federal The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In response, EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended the Ldn should not exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and annoyance in noise -sensitive areas. In addition, the Levels of Environmental Noise identified five (5) dBA as an "adequate margin of safety" for a noise level increase relative to a baseline noise exposure level of 55 dBA Ldn (i.e., there would not be a noticeable increase in adverse community reaction with an increase of five dBA or less from this baseline level). The EPA did not promote these findings as universal standards or regulatory goals Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 71 Mitigated Negative Declaration - March 14, 2019 751-157 z LL 0 LLJ 0 -i LL. V) C-) LLJ -j CE I 4-1 -v� F I ow 4"A >LU p isL JI I all n, 4041c, 751-158 CA'19 NOINV I , I9j rvI %W-ftw f .! --T 1 14 VIAODIVS E w Le PrA E w Le PrA with mandatory applicability to all communities, but rather as advisory exposure levels below which there would be no risk to a community from any health or welfare effect of noise. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at lower levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments. State State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017 Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. OPR Guidelines identify the suitability of various types of construction relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the variability in community preferences. The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix that Identifies acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix G) establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis. Two of these standards apply to what is referred to as a "substantial increase" in ambient noise levels. The City does not have a definition of a substantial increase, nor does CEQA establish a numerical value for this threshold. Noise generated by transportation sources propagates differently than noise generated by point sources. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the following thresholds were used to evaluate the project's potential to result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Traffic Noise Threshold The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level (FICON 1992). The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (CNEL) or hourly logarithmic average noise levels (Leq). For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project -related noise level Increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. In areas where the ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a perceptible noise level increase of 3 dBA is appropriate for most people. When the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA, any increase in community noise of 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Table 15 below provides a summary of the potential noise impact significance criteria, based on guidance from FICON. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 73 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-159 Table 15 FICON Noise Level Criteria Significance of Noise Im acts at Noise Sensitive Receivers Ambient (Without Project) Noise Level Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more 60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more > 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more avuiC;c. rcuu, di mieiayency Cummiaee an Noise (hit -UN), lYY2. Stationary Noise Noise generated during the operation of the project that includes parking lot activities, landscape maintenance and the operation of heating, ventilation and air conditioners (HVAC) can produce noise levels that disturb adjacent residential areas. A 5 dBA increase is considered to be 'readily audible", which seems to correlate most closely to a "substantial increase'. For the purposes of this report, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to stationary noise sources shall be considered 5 dBA Leq. City of Santa Ana Local Regulations City of Santa Ana General Plan The City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element includes noise related goal, objectives, and policies. The goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the project are listed below. Goal 1 Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and minimize the adverse effects of currently -existing noise sources. Objectives 1.1 Prevent creation of new and additional sources of noise. 1.2 Reduce current noise levels to acceptable standards. Policies • Require consideration of noise generation potential and susceptibility to noise impacts in the sitting, design and construction of new developments. • Require mitigating site and building design features, traffic circulation alternatives, insulation, and other noise prevention measures of those new developments which generate high noise levels. • Sound insulate and/or buffer sensitive land uses such as housing from adverse noise impacts in noise -prone areas. • Minimize noise generation in residential neighborhoods through control or elimination of truck traffic and through -traffic from these areas. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 44 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-160 As shown in Table 16 the City of Santa Ana has adopted Interior and Exterior noise standards that are applicable to the project. Table 16 City of Santa Ana Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Categories Land Use Categories Interior' Exterior Residential Single-family, duplex, multi- family45 3 65 Institutional Hospitals, school classrooms/playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 Open Space Parks 65 (1) Interior areas to include but are not limited to: bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living rooms, pining rooms, closets, corridors/hallways, private offices, and conference rooms. (2) Exterior areas shall mean: private yards of single family homes, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, common areas, private open space, such as atriums on balconies, shall be excluded form exterior areas provided sufficient common area is included within the project. (3) Interior noise level requirements contemplate a closed window condition. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided per the Uniform Building Code. Source: City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element Table 1, 1982. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Article VI Noise Control establishes daytime and nighttime permissible sound limits or levels for all residentially zoned properties as well as prohibited noises. These standards apply to all project generated on -site operational noise that may extend to adjacent properties. The City's exterior and interior noise standards as allowed by the Municipal Code are shown below. Section 18-312- Exterior Noise Standards. The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone. The City of Santa Ana is designated as Noise Zone 1. Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55 dB(A) 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 50 dB(A) 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM Section 18-313- Interior Noise Standards. The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone. Interior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55 dB(A) 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 45 dB(A) 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 75 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-161 Section 18-314- Special Provisions. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this article (a) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. (1) Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided said activities take place between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on any day except Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Sunday or a federal holiday. Standards of Significance Noise impacts are considered to be significant if they expose people to noise levels greater than the standards that are established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Santa Ana multi -family residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, patios, etc. Noise Modeling and Input A worst -case construction noise scenario was modeled using a version of the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM utilizes standard noise emission levels for many different types of equipment and includes utilization percentage, impact, and shielding parameters. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Existing and Existing Plus Project noise levels along Sunflower Avenue, Flower Street, and other affected nearby roadway segments were modeled utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108 to quantify the project's contribution to increases in ambient noise levels. SoundPLAN SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software was used to model the worst -case buildout traffic noise impacts to the project residents. SoundPLAN also evaluates stationary noise sources (e.g., air conditioning units, parking lots, etc.). SoundPLAN modeled traffic noise on Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street. The roadway parameters that were used in the noise model included location, traffic volume, speed and vehicle mix (autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks). Noise Impacts Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Existing noise -sensitive land uses would be exposed to increased noise levels from construction activities at the project site. The loudest noise during construction generally occurs during demolition and grading activities because they Involve the largest pieces of construction equipment. The maximum noise levels that are generated by various types of construction equipment are shown in Table 17. The noise levels shown in this table represent the maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual sound that Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 76 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-162 occurs at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of noise levels would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Table 17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Rock Drills 83-99 96 Jack Hammers 75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 Pumps 74-84 80 Dozers 77-90 85 Scrappers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks 83-94 88 Cranes 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 Rollers 75-82 80 Tractors 77-82 80 Front -End Loaders 77-90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81-90 86 Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 81-87 86 A worst -case construction noise scenario was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model. The construction equipment that was used in the model was based on the project's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis default construction equipment list identified in the CaIEEMod modeling (Ganddini Group, Inc., 2019). Demolition The project would require demolition of the existing church, church parking lot and other site improvements. The noise levels that would be generated to the adjacent land uses during demolition activities are shown below in Table 18. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 77 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-163 Table 18 Demolition Noise Levels Location Leg Lmax Playfields at school adjacent to the northern property line 88.8 92.1 Residential adjacent to the eastern property line 72.2 74.2 Residential property line 140 feet to the south 66 69 Residential property line 145 feet to the west 72.6 75.6 Residential property line 225 feet to the southwest 67.9 71 Grading The noise levels that would be generated to the adjacent land uses during project grading are shown in Table 19. Table 19 Grading Noise Levels Location Leg Lmax Playfields at school adjacent to the northern property line 87.3 91 Residential adjacent to the eastern property line 82.3 86 Residential property line 140 feet to the south 67.8 69.6 Residential property line 145 feet to the west 72.6 74.4 Residential property line 225 feet to the southwest 69.7 71 Although construction noise activities would have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing noise levels within the vicinity of the project vicinity, all construction activities would be restricted to the hours allowed by Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-314. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered less than significant. However, to be conservative and reduce construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors, mitigation measures 2-9 listed in section "XIII. a)" above would further reduce construction noise impacts to area residents. Taft Elementary school to the north and multi -family residences to the east, south (south of Sunflower Avenue), west (west of Flower Street), and southwest (across the Sunflower Avenue and Sakioka Drive intersection) may be temporarily impacted by short-term construction noise on the site. The short-term noise impacts would be associated with construction workers commuting to the site, the delivery of construction materials to and from the site, ground clearing and demolition, excavation, grading, and building activities. However, the construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the site and not concentrated in one area near adjacent surrounding sensitive land uses. Santa Ana Municipal Code section 18-314 exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property from the noise limitations of the Municipal Code, provided that construction activities do not occur between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturdays, or any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Because the project would be required to comply with the hours of construction as defined by Santa Ana Municipal Code section 18-314 the noise levels that are generated during construction would not have any significant noise impacts to area residents. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 78 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-164 Noise Impacts to Off -Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Trips A worst -case project generated traffic noise level was modeled utilizing The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108 was referenced to calculate the potential noise impact associated with project generated traffic. Roadway parameters for the traffic model calculations include average daily traffic volumes (ADTs), posted speeds, and vehicle distribution data as shown in Table 20. The potential off -site noise impacts were calculated for the "existing" condition and the "existing plus project' condition. Table 20 Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Roadway Parameters Average Daily Traffic Posted Volume' Travel Site Roadway Segment Speeds Conditions Existing Plus Existing Project (MPH) West of Flower 21,149 21,720 45 Hard Sunflower StreeUSakioka Drive Avenue East of Flower 45 StreeUSakioka Drive 19,620 20,634 Hard Flower Street North of Sunflower Avenue 9,773 9,836 40 Hard Vehicle Distribution (Heavy Mix)Z Daytime % Night % (7 AM - 7 Evening % (10 PM - 7 Motor -Vehicle Type PM) (7 PM - 10 PM) AM) Automobiles 75.54 14.02 10.43 Medium Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 Heavy Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 As shown, modeled Existing traffic noise levels range between 72.07-75.37 dBA CNEL and the modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 72.08-75.42 dBA CNEL at the right-of- way of each modeled roadway segment. Noise level increases associated with project generated traffic would be considered significant if noise levels were greater than the levels shown previously in Table 16. A shown below in Table 21 all modeled roadway segments are calculated to have noise level Increases of approximately 0.01 to 0.1 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the increase in the noise level on area roadways would be less than significant. Transportation Noise Impacts to the Project The City of Santa Ana General has adopted interior and exterior noise level criteria for residential, institutional, and open space land uses. As shown previously in Table 16, exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL are considered acceptable noise levels for residential use. Exterior areas are defined as private yards of single-family homes, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, common areas, private open space, such as atriums on balconies, shall be excluded from exterior areas provided that sufficient common area is included within the project. Interior noise level requirements contemplate a closed window condition. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided per the Uniform Building Code. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 79 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-165 Table 21 Change in Existing Noise Levels Along Roadways as a Result of Project (dBA CNEL) Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Distance from roadway Existing Existing Chan e g Roadway Segment centerline Without Plus I Exceeds Increase of to right- Project Project Noise Standards 3 dB or of -way at right- at right- Level More (feet)' of -way of -way West of Flower Sunflower Street/Sakioka Drive 60 75.37 75.42 0.05 Yes No Avenue East of Flower Street/Sakioka Drive 60 75.04 75.14 0.10 Yes No Flower Street North of Sunflower Avenue 50 72.07 72.08 0.01 Yes No (I) Exterior noise levels calculated 5 reet above pad elevation, perpendicular to subject roadway. (2) Right-of-way per the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, 1998. Figure 17 shows the calculated exterior noise levels throughout the project at various reception locations based on traffic on area roadways adjacent to the project. Table 22 lists the noise levels at each of the reception locations shown in Figure 17. As shown, the exterior noise levels at the facades of the apartment building that faces Sunflower Avenue with traffic volumes after project completion would range between 29 dBA CNEL and 75 dBA CNEL. The exterior noise levels due to buildout traffic volumes at the facades of the building that would face Flower Street would range between 66 dBA CNEL and 71 dBA CNEL. The exterior noise levels at the pool/recreation area are calculated to be up to 65 dBA CNEL. Table 22 Buildout Traffic Noise Levels and Recommended Window STC Ratings Receptor Floor Buildout Traffic Noise Levels Required Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction' Requir ad Windo wSTC' Receptor Floor Buildout Traffic Noise Levels Required Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction' Required Window STC' 1 1 63 18 21 11 1 29 n/a n/a 2 65 20 23 2 29 n/a n/a 3 66 21 24 3 31 n/a n/a 4 66 21 24 4 34 n/a n/a 5 66 21 24 5 39 n/a n/a 2 1 59 14 17 12 1 60 15 18 2 61 16 19 2 60 15 18 3 62 17 20 3 61 16 19 4 63 18 21 4 61 16 19 5 63 18 21 5 61 16 19 3 1 68 23 26 13 1 73 n/a n/a 2 70 25 28 2 74 n/a n/a Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 80 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-166 =Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA i G i *— J11111111111111, r 111 Y v O 4 L V L j f � 1 I I *. 4111111► Signs and symbols Proposed Buildings Receiver • ReceiveraibuiMing Road Emission Line ® Noise Level by Floor (CNEL) 1:110 0 30 eo 120 180 Zan feet Figure 17 Buildout Traffic Noise Levels 751-167 Page 82 3 70 25 28 3 74 n/a n/a 4 70 25 2S 4 74 n/a n/a 5 69 24 27 5 73 n/a n/a 4 1 65 20 23 14 1 60 n/a n/a 2 66 21 24 2 59 n/a n/a 3 67 22 25 3 60 n/a n/a 4 66 21 24 4 60 n/a n/a 5 66 21 24 5 60 n/a n/a 5 1 74 29 32 15 1 68 23 26 2 75 30 33 2 70 25 28 3 74 29 32 3 71 26 29 4 74 29 32 4 71 26 29 5 73 28 31 5 71 26 29 6 1 64 19 22 16 1 66 21 24 2 65 20 23 2 68 23 26 3 66 21 24 3 69 24 27 4 66 21 24 4 69 24 27 5 66 21 24 5 69 24 27 7 1 64 19 22 17 1 66 21 24 2 65 20 23 2 68 23 26 3 66 21 24 3 69 24 27 4 66 21 24 4 69 24 27 5 66 21 24 5 69 24 27 8 1 65 20 23 18 1 54 9 12 2 67 22 25 2 52 7 10 3 67 22 25 3 53 8 11 4 67 22 25 4 53 8 11 5 67 22 25 5 54 9 12 9 1 74 n/a n/a 19 1 52 7 10 2 75 n/a n/a 2 52 7 10 3 74 n/a n/a 3 54 9 12 4 74 n/a n/a 4 54 9 12 5 74 n/a n/a 5 55 10 13 10 1 60 15 18 2 59 14 17 3 60 15 18 4 60 15 18 5 60 15 38 Notes: n/a = not residential land use Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 81 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-168 The proposed apartment building is required to have mechanical ventilation systems or other means of natural ventilation as required by the Uniform Building Code. Typical construction that complies with the Uniform Building Code provides approximately 20 dBA of exterior to interior sound reduction. Based on the noise analysis some of the proposed residential units would be exposed to exterior noise levels that would require more than 20 dBA noise reduction. Therefore, upgraded window treatments would be required to achieve the City required interior noise levels. Table 6 shows the calculated exterior noise levels at each receptor site on the project along with the required exterior to interior noise level reduction and the required window sound class transmission (STC) for windows of all residential units that face Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street to meet the required interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The City does not have exterior or interior noise standards for commercial land uses. Therefore, window upgrades to reduce interior noise levels for the proposed non-residential amenities on the site including the leasing office, mail room, fitness center, bike cafe, club room and business center/conference room, parcel room are not required. The following measure is recommended to reduce interior noise levels of the residential units that face Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street to meet Santa Ana Municipal Code section 18-313. Mitigation Measure No. 9 All residential units that face Sunflower Avenue and Flower Street shall have acoustic windows with STC ratings shown in Table 6 of the Noise Report.32 Operational Noise Impacts The operational activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to impact the nearby school, multi -family attached residential dwelling units, and single-family detached residential dwelling units. Specifically, these activities include parking lot noise and air conditioning units. Land uses surrounding the site consist of an elementary school to the north, multi -family attached and single-family detached residential dwelling units to the east, multi -family attached residential dwelling units to the south (across Sunflower Avenue), and multi -family attached residential dwelling units to the west (across Flower Street). The nearest existing sensitive receptors are the school playfields located adjacent to the north and the multi -family attached residential dwelling units located adjacent to the east. Noise associated with parking lots includes, but is not limited to Idling cars/trucks, trucks diesel engines, exhaust systems, trailer coupling, air brakes, warning signal, doors closing, and starting engine noise. Noise levels associated with parking lots typically range between 44-63 dBA Ley at a distance of 100 feet. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-312 includes exterior noise level standards of 55 dBA during the daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). In addition, Section 18-315 of the Municipal Code states that it is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at a school while it is in use to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 18-312 prescribed for the assigned noise zone in which the school is located. The proposed project includes the development of the site with 226 multi -family attached residential dwelling units and an associated parking structure. This use is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels or as Legacy Sunflower Project, Noise Impact Analysis, Gandinni, January 23, 2019. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 83 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-169 exceed the City of Santa Ana's exterior noise standards to any sensitive land use. Therefore, noise from the proposed parking structure would have less than significant noise impacts. The noise levels generated by the project would not impact surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the project would not be significantly impacted by traffic noise on either Flower Street or Sunflower Avenue with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 10. Therefore, project noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The way that vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface; compression; and shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push-pull" fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or "side -to -side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation". As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro -inch per second. The Federal Railroad Administration uses the abbreviation "VdB" for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel. PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage and VdB is commonly used to evaluate human response. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration. Similar to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the average vibration and the maximum vibration level observed during a single vibration measurement interval. Figure 18 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to ground - borne vibration. As shown, the threshold of perception for human response is approximately 65 VdB; however, human response to vibration is not usually substantial unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. Vibration Impacts There are several types of construction equipment that can cause vibration levels high enough to annoy persons in the vicinity and/or result in architectural or structural damage to nearby structures and improvements. As shown in Table 23, a vibratory roller could generate up to 0.21 PPV at a distance of 25 feet; and operation of a large bulldozer (0.089 PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (two of the most vibratory pieces of construction equipment). Groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors associated with this equipment would drop off as the equipment moves away. For example, as the vibratory roller moves further than 100 feet from the sensitive receptors, the vibration associated with it would drop below 0.046 PPV, depending upon the soil type and specific usage of the piece of equipment. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 84 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-170 MPhilMartin &Associates, Inc. Human/Structural Response LEGACY SUNFLOWER I CITY OF SANTA ANA VELOCITY LEVEL* Threshold, minor cosmetic damage —► fragile buildings Difficulty with tasks such as reading a VDT screen Residential annoyance, infrequent -: events (e.g. commuter rail) Residential annoyance, frequent events (e.g. rapid transit) Limit for vibration sensitive — 0 equipment. Approltimate threshold for human perception of vibration Typical Sources (50 ft from source) a Blasting from construction projects [ Bulldozers and other heavy tracked construction equipment <— Commuter rail, upper range Rapid transit, upper range t— Commuter rail, typical 0 Bus or truck over bump t-- Rapid transit, typical E Bus or truck, typical <— Typical background vibration * RMS Vibration Velocity Level in dB relative to 10 -6 inches/second Source: FRA, 2012. Federal Railroad Administration Highspeed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Railroad Policy Development, Washington, D.C. DOT/FRA(ORD-12115. September. Figure 18 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration 7 5 1 -171 Page 85 Table 23 Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second at 25 feet at 50 feet at 100 feet Clam Shovel Drop (slurry wall 0.202 0.071 0.025 Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.074 0.026 Hoe Ram 0.089 0.031 0.011 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.011 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0004 (1) Source: Federal Transit Administration: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. (2) Bold values are considered annoying to people. Annoyance to Persons The primary effect of perceptible vibration is often a concern. However, secondary effects, such as the rattling of a china cabinet, can also occur, even when vibration levels are well below perception. Any effect (primary perceptible vibration, secondary effects, or a combination of the two) can lead to vibration annoyance. The degree that a person is annoyed depends on the activity they are participating at the time of the disturbance. For example, someone sleeping or reading would be more sensitive than someone who is running on a treadmill. Reoccurring primary and secondary vibration effects often lead people to believe that the vibration is damaging their home, although vibration levels are well below minimum thresholds for damage potential. As shown in Table 24, vibration is annoying at a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.20. The closest structure adjacent to the project is approximately ten feet from the eastern property line. At ten feet, the use of a vibratory roller would generate a PPV of 0.575 and a large bulldozer would generate a PPV of 0.244. Annoyance would be short-term and occur only during site grading and preparation when vibration generation equipment is in operation and during City allowed hours of construction. Table 24 Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Groundborne Vibration Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006-0.019 in/sec Threshold of perception, Vibrations unlikely to cause damage possibility of intrusion of any type Recommended upper level of 0.08 in/sec Vibrations readily perceptible vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 86 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-172 0.10 in/sec Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people Virtually no risk of "architectural' (i.e., not structural) damage to normal buildings Threshold at which there is a risk to 0.20 in/sec Vibrations annoying to people "architectural' damage to normal in buildings dwelling — houses with plastered walls and ceilings Vibrations considered Vibrations at a greater level than unpleasant by people normally expected from traffic, but 0.4-0.6 in/sec subjected to continuous ,,could cause "architectural' damage vibrations and unacceptable and possibly minor structural to some people walking on damage bridges Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Cnapter a Tables 5 and 12, September 2013. Architectural Damage Vibration generated by construction activity generally has the potential to damage structures. This could be structural damage, such as cracking of Floor slabs, foundations, columns, beams, or wells, or cosmetic architectural damage, such as cracked plaster, stucco, or tile. Table 24 shows the PPV levels of 0.20 as the threshold for a risk for "architectural' damage. Therefore, the use of a vibratory roller within 26 feet or the operation of a large bulldozer within 12 feet of existing structures could result in architectural damage. Caution should be used if vibratory equipment is operated within 16 feet of the eastern property line of the project. The following measure is recommended to reduce potential vibration impacts to the residents east of the project. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Vibratory equipment such as vibratory rollers shall be restricted from use within 16 feet of the eastern property line and large bulldozers within 2 feet of the eastern property line. The project would have less than significant ground borne or vibration impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no public airports in the City of Santa Ana or the immediate project vicinity. John Wayne Airport is the closest airport to the site and located approximately one mile southeast of the project. The project site is not located within the land use plan of John Wayne Airport. Because the project site is approximately one mile northwest from John Wayne Airport and not within the land use plan of the airport, the project would not be impacted by noise levels at John Wayne Airport. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes 226 apartments including studio, one and two bedroom rental units. Currently there are 4.34 persons per household in Santa Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 87 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-173 Ana.33 Assuming the persons per unit for the proposed apartments is one-third of the city average due to the number of studio and one -bedroom apartments, the project is estimated to house approximately 328 residents'" and represents a 0.098% increase of the city's current population of 334,13635 (2017). This population increase assumes that all of the project residents live outside the city and would relocate to Santa Ana. This percentage is much less when taking into account any existing city residents that would move to the site. An increase in 328 residents, assuming all of the project residents currently live outside the city, would not substantially increase the city's current population. California State Housing Element Law enacted in 1980 requires the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other regional councils of government in California to determine the existing and projected regional housing needs for persons at all income levels. SCAG is also required by law to determine each jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need in the six -county (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) Southern California region. State legislation and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process are intended to address housing needs for projected state population and household growth, to create a better balance of jobs and housing in communities, and to ensure the availability of decent affordable housing for all income groups. As the regional Council of Governments (COG) for Southern California, State law requires SCAG to "determine the existing and projected housing need for its region". SCAG takes the lead in overseeing the assessment by identifying measures to gauge housing demand and comparing those numbers against socioeconomic factors throughout the region. The RHNA consists of two measurements: 1) existing need for housing, and 2) future need for housing. The existing need assessment examines key variables from census data, to measure ways in which the housing market is not meeting the needs of current residents. The future need assessment is determined by SCAG's growth forecast and public participation process. The State's Housing Element law requires local governments to make plans to adequately address their share of existing and projected population growth', taking into consideration affordability of available and future housing. Recognizing that the most critical decisions regarding housing development, occur at the local level, through a city's General Plan, the Housing law seeks to adequately address housing needs and demands. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) enforce State Housing Element Law by requiring certified Housing Elements as part of every city's General Plan. As of March 2019, the City has exceeded its 2014-2021 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Goals for all income categories. A recent Housing Element Annual Progress Report was prepared by the City for submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in April. The report is required by the State for the City to provide a summary that Santa Ana is making progress to meeting its share of the RHNA and to be in compliance with State Housing Law and be eligible for certain State funding programs such as the Housing Related Parks Program (HRP). There were 1,372 building permits issued for new housing units in Santa Ana in 2018 and 42 percent of those permits, or 577 units, were for affordable units. The 577 building permits for affordable residential units allowed the City to exceed Santa Ana's RHNA allocation for 204 affordable units. Table 25 shows the progress the city has made towards exceeding its' RHNA allocations. The project would further assist the City towards exceeds its RHNA residential unit allocation. 33 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaanacitycalifornia/PST045217. 34 1.45 persons per unit. 35:.,,...m...... ..--_....__1... :..,,,-...,u.._w_u-,_`.-____:•___:1-__`_ I----- --. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-174 Table 25 Santa Ana Progress Towards Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2014-2021 Income RHNA New New New New New Total Total Level Allocation Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Remaining Per SIB 35 Units Units Units Units Units Units by RHNA by 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Income Income Levels Low 45 0 49 49 43 172 313 +268 Very Low 32 2 31 22 38 388 481 +449 Moderate 37 12 4 20 10 17 63 +26 Subtotal 114 14 84 91 91 577 857 +743 Affordable Subtotal Above 90 80 442 130 424 795 1,871 +1,781 Market Moderate Rate Total 204 94 526 221 515 1,372 2,728 +2,524 Santa Ana Housing Element The Santa Ana Housing Element provides housing goals and policies to achieve the city's desired housing needs. The housing goals and policies from the Housing Element that are applicable to the project are provided below: Goal 1 Livable and complete neighborhoods of quality housing conditions, ample parks and community services, well -maintained infrastructure, and public facilities that inspire neighborhood pride and ownership. Policies HE-1.5 Infrastructure and Public Services. Provide quality community facilities, physical Infrastructure, traffic management and parking control, and other public services to promote the livability, safety, and vitality of neighborhoods. HE-1.8 Public Safety. Support efforts to improve neighborhood safety through environmental design, housing maintenance, community oriented policing, youth diversion activities, traffic safety, and other violence prevention measures. Goal 2 A diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Policies HE-2.3 Rental Housing. Encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate -income residents and moderate - income Santa Ana workers. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 89 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-175 HE-2.4 Diverse Housing Types. Facilitate diverse types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single- family homes, apartments, townhomes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit -oriented housing, multigenerational housing, and live -work opportunities. HE-2.5 Housing Design. Require excellence in architectural design through the use of materials and colors, building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sensitive ("green') building and design practices. HE-2.6 Affordable Component. Pursuant to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance, require eligible rental and ownership housing projects to include at least 15 percent of the housing units as affordable for lower and moderate income households. Goal 3 Increased opportunities for low and moderate -income individuals and families to find quality housing opportunities and afford a greater choice of rental or homeownership opportunities. Policies HE-3.1 Rental Assistance. Support the provision of rental assistance for individuals and families earning extremely low, very low, and low income with funding from the federal government. HE-3.4 Supportive Services. Support the provision of employment training, childcare services, rental assistance, youth services, and other community services that enable households to attain the greatest level of self-sufficiency and independence. HE-3.5 Collaborative Partnerships. Collaborate with nonprofit organizations, developers, business community, special interest groups, and government agencies to develop affordable housing opportunities for residents and our workforce. Goal 4 Adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services for seniors, people with disabilities, families with children, and people needing emergency, transitional, or supportive housing. Policies HE-4.4 Service -Enriched Housing. Support the provision of supportive services and service -enriched housing for persons with special needs, such as seniors, disabled people, homeless people, families, veterans, and people with medical conditions. HE-4.6 Homeless Services. Partner with community service organizations that address the needs of homeless people, including housing linked with case management, employment, physical, mental health, substance abuse, and other services. HE-4.8 Housing Priority. Provide that Santa Ana residents, employees, and designated need groups receive priority for affordable housing created under the Housing Opportunity Ordinance or with City funding to the extent allowed under state law. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 90 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-176 Available Land For Housing The City has identified four areas for future residential and mixed uses within its District Centers and transit corridors. These areas include the Transit Zoning Code, Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, Fifth Street and First Street. The sites are specifically chosen to create distinct and vibrant activity centers linked together with a variety of transportation options. The project is not located within any of the four identified District Centers or transit corridors. The rental rates of the apartments would be market rate. While the project does not propose any affordable units (very low or low income) the project developer would pay an in -lieu fee in compliance with Section 41-1904 (c) of Article XVIII.I. — Housing Opportunity Ordinance of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The purpose of this article is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by requiring the inclusion of affordable housing units within new developments or the conversion of rental units to condominium ownership when the number of units exceed the densities permitted under the general plan.36 Per Sec. 41-1904 (e) of Article XVIII.I the project developer must pay the in -lieu fee prior to the issuance of the first building permit and the collected fee would be deposited in the inclusionary housing fund. The proposed 226 residential units would provide housing for Above Moderate income households for the residents of Santa Ana and allow the city to exceed the RHNA housing need allocation of 90 units for the Above Moderate income housing. The project would meet the goals and policies of the Housing Element by providing Above Moderate income housing for city residents as envisioned by the Housing Element. The project would not have a significant impact to the City's population. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The existing church is proposed to be relocated to downtown Santa Ana with the development of the project. There are no residential units on the site. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts associated with displacing any people or housing units. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection services to the site. The closest fire station to the site is Fire Station 76 and located at 950 W. MacArthur Avenue. The fire station is approximately one mile northwest of the site. The second closest fire station is Fire Station 28 that is located at 17862 Gillette Avenue in Irvine and approximately two miles from the site. OCFA standard is for the first responding unit to be on the scene within 7 minutes and 20 seconds of the call 80% of the time. The project could require fire protection services during construction for accidents or other on -site construction emergencies. Once constructed, the project would require fire protection services that are typically required for a residential project. While the project would require fire protection services during 36 Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article XVIII.I, Sec. 41-1900. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 91 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-177 both construction and the life of the project, OCFA has sufficient personnel to serve the project without any significant impact to OCFA's ability to continue to provide an adequate level of fire protection service to the community. The impact by the project to fire protection services would be less than significant. ii. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana Police Department provides police protection services to the site from the police headquarters located at 60 Civic Center Plaza, which is approximately 1.5 miles east of the site. The project could require police protection services during project construction to respond to theft, vandalism, accidents and other construction related police emergencies. Once constructed, the project would require operational police services such as routine police patrols, vandalism, break-ins, and other service calls associated with residential development. While the project would require construction and operational police protection services, the project would not significantly impact the Police Department's ability to continue to provide an adequate level of service to the community. The impact by the project to police services would be less than significant. Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. Any students generated by the project would attend Taft Elementary school, McFadden Intermediate school and Saddleback High School. The project proposes 226 apartments and is estimated to generate approximately 117 students for grades elementary through high school." The schools that would serve the project have the current permanent capacity to accommodate the additional students without impacting the capacity of the schools, with the exception of Taft Elementary school. Taft Elementary school has a current capacity of 505 students and a current enrollment (2018-2019) of 588 students. Because the school currently operates at 83 students over capacity, the additional 54 students generated by the project would further impact the student capacity at Taft Elementary school. As required by Government Code Section 65995, the project would pay the required developer fee towards the cost to offset impacts from the students that would be generated by the project. Currently the Santa Ana Unified School District developer fee for residential use is $3.79 per square foot. The project developer would be required to pay the fee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the residential units. Payment of the required developer fee would reduce the impact to the Santa Ana Unified School District to less than significant. iv. Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest public park to the project is Sandpointe Park that is located at 3700 S. Birch Street and approximately one-half mile northeast of the project. Sandpointe is a neighborhood park and provides basketball courts, exercise trail, multi -purpose field, playgrounds tennis courts, volleyball, etc. Also within one-half mile northwest of the project is Bomo Koral park that is located at 900 W. MacArthur Boulevard. Bomo Koral park is also a neighborhood park and has ball diamonds, multi -purpose fields, and picnic tables. While some project residents may use the recreational facilities at Sandpointe and Bomo Koral parks, it is anticipated that many project residents would use the on -site active recreational facilities including the fitness center, pool and spa, outdoor yoga and fitness court, residential gardens and outdoor dining and dog park and not significantly increase the use of Sandpointe and Bomo Koral parks or any other city park. The proposed on -site fitness center would meet the needs of some of the project residents. Any increase in the use of existing city park facilities by the project residents is anticipated to be minimal and not significantly impact existing Santa Ana park facilities. The project would not significantly impact existing parks in Santa Ana. 31 Santa Ana Unified School District, Jeremy Cogan, Director of Facilities Planning, letter dated January 23, 2019. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 92 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-178 v. Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no public facilities or services that would be impacted by the project. XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not significantly impact recreation facilities. Please see Public Services section "XV.a.iv)" above. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section "XV.a.iv)" above, the project proposes to provide an on - site fitness center, pool and spa, outdoor yoga and fitness court, residential gardens and outdoor dining, and dog park for project residents. The proposed fitness center would be constructed during construction of the project and would not have an adverse impact on the environment. The project would not require the construction of the expansion of other recreational facilities that would impact the environment. The project would not significantly impact recreation facilities. XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A traffic study was prepared for the project.38 A copy of the traffic study is included in Appendix F. The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,268 vehicle trips a day, including 84 AM and 103 PM trips. The daily vehicle trips associated with the existing church were not taken into account to provide a conservative estimate of the project trip generation. The estimated project trip generation is shown in Table 26. Table 26 Project Traffic Generation Rates and Forecast39 Description Daily 2- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Way Trip Generation Rate: • 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid- Rise40) (TE/DU') 5.44 26% 74% 0.36 61% 39% 0.44 Proposed Project Trip Generation: • Apartments (233) 1,268 22 62 84 63 40 103 Note: TElDU = Trip End per Dwelling Unit 36 Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Legacy Sunflower Apartments, Santa Ana, California, Lincscott Law & Greenspan, January 24, 2019. 39 Source: Trip Generation, loth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 40 Mid -Rise Multifamily Housing consists of buildings that range between 3 and 10 levels. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 Page 93 751-179 The project traffic report studied eight (8) area intersections and four (4) roadway segments to determine if the project would impact the project area circulation system. The eight intersections and four roadway segments were studied for the following six (6) traffic conditions: • Existing (2018) • Existing plus Project • Year 2022 Cumulative traffic • Year 2022 Cumulative plus Project • Year 2040 • Year 2040 plus Project The traffic report assumed an ambient traffic growth factor of 1.0% per year. Therefore, from the base year of 2018 to the project completion date of 2022 the growth factor is 4.0%. The traffic report took into account the traffic that would be generated by the development of other projects in the cities of Santa Ana and Costa Mesa that are close to the proposed project. The traffic report estimated the traffic that is generated by the 16 cumulative projects listed in Table 30 and added that traffic to the six traffic conditions listed above. The traffic report assumed a project completion date of 2022 as proposed by the project applicant. Therefore, a project completion date of 2022 is shown as the time the project would be completed. Year 2040 is included in the traffic report as requested by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) using their OCTAM4.0 traffic computer model. The traffic distribution pattern of the project is shown in Figure 19. The traffic distribution patterns are based on the following: • Location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system; • The site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes; • Physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns; • Presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity, and • Ingress/egress availability at the site. The peak hour intersection capacity analysis for project traffic for the existing plus project, Year 2022 plus project and Year 2040 plus project are shown in Tables 27, 28 and 29, respectively. As shown, the project traffic would not impact any of the eight studied intersections with the exception of the Main Street at Sunflower Avenue intersection. The Main Street at Sunflower Avenue intersection would be impacted in the PM peak hour for years 2022 and 2040 both without and with the project. A mitigation measure is recommended below to reduce the potential traffic impact at this intersection for both the Year 2022 and Year 2040 conditions to meet City of Santa Ana transportation requirements. Mitigation Measure No. 11 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project developer shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Main Street to provide a southbound right -turn overlap phase. The traffic study prepared for the project complies with the traffic Impact requires of the City of Santa Ana and is consistent with the current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County.41 The project would not impact any City of Santa Ana transportation requirements or the County CMP. 41 Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Leqacy Sunflower Apartments, Santa Ana, California, Lincscolt Law & Greenspan, January 24 2019 Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 94 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-180 Q z Q IQ— z Q to LL O I— U W O J LL Z (n U a W J LO 0% d rn ca 751-181 MA T Q T u mm O U c O U a) L n � N C A! cc 0 m m Q7 a u O a` V) 7 a C y X w Y N 0 a) c fn �. a)O O a EE J > > C EL O` O d aU C 9 C = N 4 7 ~ ly a U v O a y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z E M C v u U a) 4_. N N w O >NONu OOOOO O O O rn M h O O O O O O O> U V) CA 0 oc O m p¢ U¢ ¢ ca U d = J N � C p, U = U N V) w .N W = In 10 I`7 w I" If) In I, O In In In O W~ IL) o 0 0 06 o v Ld N C = J P o "NU X V =I= U N M M 1- O M M M -4 V) > N _In O, L I... V 10 O co O In O 1, O V O If) O co M d' N N N � 2i 2 2 2 2:2 :2 Fa2 ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a Sol ajgejdaooy ❑ w o ❑ wnwiuiw � ry m o m 0 0 e v 0 C m (n _ C a) C 0 y O 0 > ¢ a) d > ¢ m > ¢ N 3 T 3 a g c a) o c vl c a) 0 FL5i m m o` N (n LL ❑ (n CO)f N (M V L L 10 a A @ a a ) m 13' d d 0 0 m m U U `0 0 _T _T U ¢ U ¢ t II L II as N m N 0 0 d 2 2 Iri m M A V H UL N UI� U C ISO C SA II O O 00 O O O C J II C 0 J II ¢ rn 7 < - 0 c in c�^U � cn 3a in ) Sm oa mMa `o `o olrn� cln� 0 p 0¢ o p 0¢ II a II U A>> U c 7 0 o a)Uc ooUc U > oft > rn Lca¢'c°--CLm 0 3 o�3U'3 o-yU a¢ N c a¢ o o c o o u y v O 0 C Z O j C Z T _CL `m LL W 3 0 w I IRS `o om3m`o om3 1 c 0 N c o C VI N C Y� O O c '- L �V)Y JL �V)Y J Q1 m Em 3 u)ia L� 3 m� V) to a_ m_ 0p02 OC)ORZ a om W U -�NN� u�tnN m ¢ a) N �� N y f�/LI C O U) ) 3'C a) a yl 3 00 p .` O C C .` O p am u.K�am11� Q) �Z d L N M L N M V (n a i U i T y m e v Ja) 751-182 N V) J z Z Q a Q U z O 0 U W W Z W Z O Z 0 N O Ltl Y J a G W Fa U W 0 K a V7 7 J a O z N X W oacio p a ER J N?v O O "a oEu .0 m U y 7 ` LLI U V m 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O z z z z z z z z E0 } M C �u d E C 0 T , M O m �-- M O O) d O O CDCDO O O O fn C O O O O O O O O U N d E J N c d U C v U P r M O` Cl) = w Cc _ , N LO %0 V 00 N CV) P Lo M M 1, V (n V o 6 0 06 0 06 W~ tn C a J C U xu 2 w U m 'o o o• 'o o m Cl) E m _ I m N m _ 10 M w , M P In N M r 't F` V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sol algeldaaay o 0 0 wnwiuiW o v O ^ 0 O o c c m N `m W Co O C d ¢ N ¢ N N a)O u 7 m " 3 �. 3 V) 7 m 5 0 m c 0 C N C 0 C O C p O j C c y C ¢ (N 2i V7 0] Q LL C Q T N Y lfi .O a0 I 751-183 L n` O• C C m m d m d m d a a n m m m m 3 3 d d a a p 0 N N as a U ° 0 U n o a N m a V)m � � � n N VI a mpJa oLq m N NLq 0 p 0 N o n N o n moVad.oUo U �^,n L) m m O m O pac� =ate -oaf 30 a3 --a o o .�U?0_aj0 r C C In C C U N ;o .x oQaxoa m o= 3 `m a 3 N c N N N C N � C C 0 L m j L m j a) m V) � a N E t0 2 m N A— 'C U CNNN CN0 C.m 0 p 5 m o p 5 m G d= 0 mco N y Mm N N> C C C C m=0 oG"W :s o pm c c m c c c m c o m aaa2 z t iri •o r y iri .o U) a N LL O LL O U 0 Co m°_ e e J T N N N c 7 N 0 cn p C a d y J N a)O vN �OV E E a� a�a U x H U O Z O O o O O o O O N Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z U O ..•- a N co 0 N d 0 o O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O U O O O O O O O O Ci N r_ N O O m❑ m U Q Q U❑ N 0 0 'a .M^..N O MaU }N 7 t x co co M 0 00 N CN N .O LO > N N � 10 m CO 10 I, to to N Cl)a` V o 06 06 o In 0No F fn N O m❑ m U Q Q U N C p U O ^ Nco y F C U M M In LO M 00 N } U x COo m .moo rl° u, Ln CO P UO O O O O O -1:1 N N O m❑ Q U Q Q 0] U C U O J C ^i+w O O > > O M M N N w U ?10 m in n v Ln ao v U O O O O O O �i N d � E° :E i=a Q a Q a Q n Q a algeldaaay ❑ w ❑ ❑ wnwiuiW O 5 P O O Y cc V O p N O 7 C C C y O m y Q y Q 0 Q d N 7 Y N 3 � ,,,, O 3 N d C a)Q U O C a)0 O N O T N O cu N i 7 > O'C C 7 0 O C 7 Y m N ❑ cn 0� V) � N M m � v o• C C N M a. o. m m m a� � d 3 3 N N N N � c 2 a 2 C7 0 7 D a a A 0 0 U U `o `o T T U a U a L � L .J II V II N N N O O ate. K •�. M N Lq 0 Lq U - O U - o O m•D D Nmto C II N C ?i II M m 0 In O to 0 N p 0 0 C J II C N J II 0 NU mdNU c m— rnoWa Ncoa N N O Q 0 Z C 5< = A II u = O II U 0 7 U U>> t o U 0 0 t u U d d L Oaa ��U:E< P 3 U N U c U¢ 0 0 c 2 0 0 0 UN 0 N J C N J L N> A N = N> m N aka>a'�v¢>a> m L y 00 L C y 0 N p N N C O C N N C O C C- L Jfny �L Jtny C d f0 3 "N N,JNN3NN E(0 N) N N N W t0 N O N N Ul O N u J N N U J N N N N o N y> 15 0 O O p 0 O 0 N N am FL 0_'� dm LL. LL' = Z 0NMP N l0 OU 0 U U t0 e e ) Ul- 10&9 V d 7 C C O v 00 N a) m F to C a��o 0 m U a N y s C v N U O 2 = co M r M 0 L E } o 0 U O C Z Z Z } Z Z Z Z U N } ^ v '.-_- v CaC G V V M M I LO , V O N a) O O O O O o0 O o U O O O O O O O O C y .. o U « O Q Q m w Q m Q Q N J M N O V) } = V= U = N r a0 LO O` LO `O a` LO LO 'O T M 10 M LO V o 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 )n O Q Q m W Q m Q Q N C NO U O ^ N w = v M 'O O C co V LO O o CO�O }~ V ? 10 m M OO LO LO 10 m D O O O O O O O O U w O Q Q m 0 Q Q Q Q C C U J O o M a, co C-0 w 0 = N N r U LO 10 CO M LO M V ?LO o 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 U �a aa¢¢ ¢ a¢ a Sol ejge}de33V o 0 0 wnwiuiW P v (Q Y d O Y C O C A N V N > > M U a) Q cc0 P m > a) > a) d m ` 3 N m N m m c 0 c C c° 0 0 3> 0 O Y Q V) V) Q m Q LL Q LO Id N m N Gl O, C C C a) rn m m m m m m m v d d 3 3 3 c c c 22 C7 (7 U U U U a a a N N N m m m N 0 V U U `O o `O o U U U L L L A A A N N O O Q Q M a a n� U NWU&j(n—L)o— CO om c m II n U II 0m-p m .moo ONm� Q �Ja mLnJQ NJ m �w m w c m Eao 3 m P N P W 0p r ) V)00 V)o0.v�ac O O M O E M 0 A mUo`? oUo d �o U U a n O c c 7 L a UL UL da vU L O � ^ L O` � --L O •--• O• 3 c¢a.3a¢a 3 Na N pU c¢oa cQ oaQ v N< N U N d O N N t Nry¢ CN C C U - Pj 0 amio¢ amioQ d¢' � `O .c, V) O .c '� V) O L y- O O m C f0 C a a) a) fa 3 d 9 N 3 d c N 3 d V)r �° CLO0—cN 0:'cto d O 0 d V N Q.� 0 M a) > umi mmN�cminN �V1 N 'Ea, m C c c m c c m C ID m aQ �'� a¢ 2 d 02 C Z N L6COL IndL 16 U)'O a U .- LLL 00 li OU 11 U m m m :. 7i, N _T C Q _A U m m m U C O T U N d V) 7 O m m a O O N `m } V o N 0 a = a a o E c n G U 0) O N a O U a, —ter U U O z O o 0 o O O O O C°- G N � z z z z z z z z r ? C v V —ca N O O O O O O N N O 0 0 0 0 O ,O N u o 0 0 0 0 0 o v .. G O U w m 0 ¢ m U 0 O N = Q -O J O G N a) U i U = N r '- m V m N 0 N N C � o T 0 10 0 0 uQ-1 0 o r M F U M V N O O U w m 0 ¢ m U O � C N v U U In 0 M N M O N N 1n 10 ca 10 U o 0 06 0 06 N F 0 N O O m ¢ U ¢ ¢ m U C a_c v AnO XU l!J U N M O M M N E _ '0 m m r Q 10 c] Q ` V O O O O O O M N N O Fa¢ a ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a SOS ajqujdaooy o w o 0 wnwiujw O m m U a « Y n m N n a in a) U) N y n N �� 30 Ln 3a� N 3a� C N 3 ¢ N U� O C C N a) 3 C C N C C o m = c y d o0 c a N c a Y LL m m V Q u. N io (n Q (n Q w t a a O c c to m a) d m � n n m w O O `m v 3 3 N N C C N N a a L � t ti N N O O 0 0 m C6 Lq U O o U m o a m V a N m N n m ❑ 3 n o oo m000 C J II C N J II tO oU U m— V)?: y)H2� Ora co•a `Oar— `0 .4�— - 2 �No¢ dao¢ N II 0 U o > > U U 0 M U d o r u U v O L 02i¢ O L O2¢ 0 O` a L'-a d �L O N N U c 0 Q o U o 2¢ o 0 oU z oa z v —a ON m.YQ ONN CDO ry ry N d>3ovd}3od I L C Y O L C Y O N O N N j O C N j O C C f. t JNx OtaNy J ID m 3 Ny'3d60— Em U opd�mopddd m N u J(n u JN (n 9 ¢ a) d m fn m m— N N> at 'a v"oi3vNi d-o�3ai o m c-- o o c c— o 0 oam`LLIt 0Mm cz L 00 ry M C L y N n' i V (/ j a a li OU li OU U — m m n � J 101-1013 % d 7 C C O N d F 0 V, n.4 0c N O m U a o CC) = J Q a E ^ o vN^OV m�a4:. 2 � a, rn } 2 U 0 0 O yz° } z z° z° z° z° z° U U } !c v Co. m c A V O Cl) O In M O N N 00 O O O O 0 00 0 U C O O O O O O O O C N o O Q m m W Q m Q Q o o•oa ^ N " C a� In } 3 (31 10 10 � � 10 M �- d = LO IN m V o 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 F N w O Q m m W Q m Q Q O U C O N ^ w .N.i 10 'O =O U P In 10 n P Im 10 N >F' U = LO LO 10 10 a rm Lr) .o m Ln 0 0 0 c o 0 6 0 U y O Q Q m o Q Q Q Q C C U J O v N ` r- 0 O, 1 W~ 0 U m I 1 In N Lr) 10 M m m O` LO N In I, v D 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 U as E ra Q a Q a Q a Q a Sol ajgeldaaay o o o wnwiuiw Y O o 7 v O a Y a 0 W N ca O 7 QLq N < 7 O 7 N O N Lq dN O O C T C G C C C C C O O y C O N �> C O Y Q fn (n Q coQ LL O Q L6 �d d 1° W Z? a q a m m a 0 e N s 0 a a a 0 0 0 V V V s � rJ tC0 O � S a a n a n s n 3 3 3 C C G C q 9 C7 U (7 F n m 0 U 0 U 0 U T � T V U U ° 0 0m o 0m o a U .7 II U .] p U It •° p V] C = V1 C fA q��s��sAs a c a ) c o it rn II M �% II `o u o o 3 o O U V M U U ON pV µU m_ = oCIO ¢ c:a o¢e:au e oNC FNC �C � f° tvci s �4p°r'aooz y y Ea � m tod tl 3 a > g o m S a m Q y o y ts Dd> omti g iv u 'a '.°� v W ° R2 2.a 0 d Lo 'S o vi 16 ° a ,c r o TN v O N h N _ J 01- 101 The traffic report also evaluated potential vehicle -pedestrian conflicts on the site. The traffic report concludes the site plan does not create any unsafe vehicle -pedestrian conflict points or on -site vehicle queuing/stacking impacts. All project driveways and internal circulation have adequate curb return radii for all motorists, including service, delivery and trash trucks to enter and exit the site safely. Overall, the project would not have any significant traffic design or circulation hazards. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Sunflower Avenue and the existing circulation system adjacent to and serving the site would continue to provide adequate access for emergency vehicle access. Police, fire, paramedic/ambulance and other emergency vehicles would continue to have adequate access to respond to on -site emergencies. The proposed project entrance at Sunflower Avenue and the two-way road along the east, north and west project boundary that serves student drop-off and pick-up at Taft Elementary School north of the site would be reviewed by the City, including the Santa Ana Police Department, and the Orange County Fire Authority to ensure the main project entrance at Sunflower Avenue provides adequate driveway widths and turning radius for emergency vehicles. The project would not significantly impact emergency access to the site. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As required by AB 52 and SB 18, the City mailed letters to the area Native American Indians that are on record with the city that may have cultural resources associated with the site. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) submitted a letter to the City requesting consultation. Because the project site lies within the ancestral tribal territory of the Kizh Nation, tribal cultural resources could exist on the site. The City consulted with the Kizh nation on arch! 15` 20i1 to discuss potential impacts by the project on tribal cultural resources, if present. Based on that consultation, the City and the Kizh Nation agreed to the following measures should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during project grading and construction. Mitigation Measure No. 12 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to conduct a Native American Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation Mitigation Measure No. 13 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on -site during all project -related, ground - disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet below ground surface. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 102 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-188 Mitigation Measure No. 14 A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrielefio Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe would request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the City of Fountain Valley Planning and Building Director. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f). Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential tribal cultural resource impacts to less than significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No Impact. As discussed in Section XVII. a) above, the project would not have any Impacts to any known or suspected Native American cultural resources. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would connect to the existing 12" water main that extends under the existing sidewalk along the north side of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the site. This existing 12" water line has capacity to provide the required water supply and fire flow for the project without the need to construct new water supply facilities or expand existing facilities. There is an existing 78" sewer line in Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the site. The project proposes to construct a new 8" sewer lateral in the southwest area of the site to connect with the existing 78" sewer line in Sunflower Avenue. The proposed on -site 8" sewer lateral would collect all on -site wastewater and discharge the wastewater to the existing 78" sewer in Sunflower. The existing 78" sewer line has adequate capacity to serve the project. The Orange County Sanitation District has adequate capacity treat the wastewater generated by the project without the need to construct new or expand existing wastewater treatment facilities. Existing electricity, natural gas and telecommunications facilities are located in Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the site and currently serve the existing church. The utilities would have to be upgraded in order to adequately serve the project. All required utility upgrades would be completed within existing easements and none of the existing utilities would have to be relocated or upgraded that could result in significant environmental impacts. The project would have less than significant impact to existing water, sewer and wastewater facilities, storm drain, electrical, natural gas and telecommunication facilities. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 103 751-189 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is estimated to consume approximately 33,900 gallons of water per day56. The City has an adequate water supply to meet the demand of the project without significantly impacting the local water supply. The project would have a less than significant impact on water supply. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Sanitation Districts treats the wastewater that is generated from the site. The project is estimated to generate approximately 26,982 gallons' of wastewater per day based on 226 units. The wastewater generated by the project would be required to meet all wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Orange County Sanitation Districts before a wastewater discharge permit would be issued. The receipt of a wastewater discharge permit by the project applicant would ensure the project meets or exceeds the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of the project would generate various types of debris during project demolition and construction. Concrete and asphalt that is removed from the site during demolition can either be ground and reused on the site as base material for driveways or sold to a recycler. Other types of debris such as rocks, metal, wood, etc. that cannot be recycled would be hauled to a County landfill. Once operational, the project is estimated to generate approximately 204 pounds per day58 of solid waste for the residential use. The City contracts with the Waste Management of Orange County in Santa Ana to collect and dispose of the City's solid waste. The solid waste is disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in Irvine and Olinda Alpha Landfill located in Brea, which are operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD). The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is a 725-acre landfill with a maximum daily permitting capacity of 8,500 tons per day and is expected to remain open until 2053. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a 565-acre site and 420-acres are permitted for refuse disposal, with daily maximum permitted disposal capacity of 8,000 tons. The City of Santa Ana has a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to recycle, compost, special waste disposal, and provide public information programs. The City presently diverts approximately 60 percent of the solid waste generated. As required by Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) and the City's SRRE, the solid waste generated by the project would be recycled and the materials that cannot be recycled would be hauled to either the Frank R. Bowerman landfill or the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea. The city's waste hauler would actively recycle the solid waste generated by the project to reduce the amount of solid waste that would ultimately be hauled to the two area landfills. The project would not generate a quantity of solid waste 56 55 gallons/person/day (Municipal Water District of Orange County 2015 Urban Water Management Plan target) x 2.24 persons/unit (one-half of State Department of Finance — Table 2; E-5, average person/household, January 1, 2018) x 226 units = 27,843 57 7516 gallons/acre/day x 3.59 acres = 26,982 gallons/day. Orange County Sanitation Districts, January 24, 2019. g hitn-/A. n , ralrPrvrla ra nnv/ Doeirlanfinl _ A nnun,id,lad, i�i� Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 Page 104 751-190 that would significantly impact the life expectancy of either landfill that would serve the project. The project would not have any significant solid waste impacts. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The City of Santa Ana complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would not have any solid waste impacts because all development in Santa Ana is required to comply would all applicable solid waste statues and regulations and large quantities of solid waste would not be generated. XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Based on review of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas and State and Federal Responsibility Areas map, the City of Santa Ana is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.59 Furthermore, a review of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas map, the City of Santa Ana is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone.60 The closest Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone to the project site is the open space that extends along the south side of University Drive from Culver Drive east to Ridgeline Drive in the City of Irvine and approximately four miles southeast of the project. The project would not impair or impact any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan associated with an emergency response to a fire in this specific Very High fire hazard zone or any other designated local, state or Federal fire hazard zone in Orange County. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. As discussed in section "XIX. a)" above, the project is not in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone and the closest designated fire hazard zone is approximately four miles southeast of the project. The project site and surrounding properties are generally flat with no significant topographic relief and expose project occupants to wildfire risks. Santa Ana winds could expose project occupants to smoke and other pollutants associated with wildfires located east of the city. However, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the city and general geographic area would be exposed and not the project specifically. The project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors. c) Reguire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project would be required to install fire sprinklers as required by the CBC. However, the project would not be required to install and maintain any roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities to protect the project and the immediate area from a wildfire because the project is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result or runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As discussed in XIX "a" above, the project is not located within a Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard zone. As also discussed in XIX "b" above, the project site and surrounding properties are 59 http://frap.flre.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszLmap.30.pdf 60 http://frap.flre.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszs_map.30.pdf _ Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 105 Mitigated Negative Declaration — March 14, 2019 751-191 generally flat with no significant topographic relief that would expose structures or project occupants to significant risks due to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Because the project is not located in a fire hazard zone or downstream of any hillsides of areas of topographic relief the project would not expose either project residents or proposed structures to significant risks due to downstream or downstream flooding or landslides due to post -fire slope instabilities. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project site is developed with a church and surface parking lot. The existing vegetation on the site consists of introduced non-native landscape plant species. There are no important plants or wildlife on the site that would be impacted by the project. Similarly, there are no examples of California history or prehistory on the site or suspected to be found on the site that would be impacted by the project. The project would not impact biological or historical resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The cities of Santa Ana and Costa Mesa have identified projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The identified cumulative projects within each city are shown in Table 30. An aerial photograph showing the location of the cumulative projects is provided in Figure 20. Table 30 Cumulative Projects" No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City of Santa Ana Development 1. Legado at the MET 200 E First American Way 278 DU Apartments 2. South Coast Speedwash 2402 S Bristol Street 118.048 TSF Carwash/retail 3. Shea Homes 2001 W MacArthur Boulevard 42 DU Single-family residential 4 Tapestry by Hilton and Restaurant 1580 E Warner Avenue 142 Room, 6-story Hotel 6.000 TSF Restaurant 1,221 DU Apartments 5. The Heritage 2001 E Dyer Road 12.675 TSF Retail 5.415 TSF Restaurant 56.000 TSF Office 6. Metro Town Square Expansion 3719 S Plaza Drive 6.000 TSF Retail/Restaurant b' Source: City of Santa Ana and City of Costa Mesa Planning Department staff. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 106 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-192 City of Costa Mesa Development 7. Avenue of the Arts Hotel 3350 Avenue of the Arts 150 Room Hote162 8. 580 Anton Boulevard 580 Anton Boulevard 250 DU Apartment 393 DU Apartment4,104 SF 9. Symphony Apartments 585-595 Anton Boulevard 10. Lucene 929 Baker Street 56 DU Single Family Detached it. The Edge 789 & 795 Paularino Avenue 19 DU Single Family Detached 62 DU Apartment 5.230 TSF Retail 5.315 TSF Restaurant/Food 12. The Plant 2972 Century Place stalls 8.934 TSF Office/Live-work office 13 1957 Newport Blvd 1957 Newport Boulevard 38 DU Condominiums Condominiums 14. 2277 Harbor Blvd Apartments 2277 Harbor Boulevard 224 DU Apartment Phase 1: 344,661 SF Office 5,207 SF Shopping Center Drinking Place 15. The Press 1375 Sunflower Avenue 168 SF High -turnover 3S 16, 1 restaurant 5,808 SF Fast-food restaurant without drive-thru 16. Industrial Building 1585 MacArthur Boulevard 98.807 TSF Industrial Cumulative projects Include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of air emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are taken into account, air emissions would cover an even larger area. Therefore, the analysis for the project's cumulative air quality impacts must be generic by nature. The project area is out of attainment for ozone and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of the air in the region would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from cumulative development, including residential, commercial, and industrial, and the operation of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities of the cumulative projects that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not contribute to the overall cumulative air quality Impact. With respect to long-term emissions, this project would create a less than significant cumulative impact. 62 According to the Addendum to the Wyndham Bo0que HotetlHigh-Rise Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1054 (SCH No. 2007011125), the previously approved project included the construction of a 238-room hotel, and the proposed project includes the expansion of the hotel to include an additional 150-rooms. Therefore, the net additional 150-room hotel was analyzed under the cumulative background traffic setting in this report. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 Page 107 751-193 The proposed 226 residential units would not have any individual or cumulative noise or traffic impacts. The proposed 226 residential units would not have any significant individual or cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics, hydrology, soils and geology, land use, public services or utilities that along with the development of the Identified cumulative project in Table 16 would result in any significant cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no impacts associated with the project that would cause substantial adverse effects and significantly impact human beings either directly or indirectly. Legacy Sunflower Apartments Page 109 Mitigated Negative Declaration —March 14, 2019 751-195 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan SUNFLOWER LEGACY APARTMENTS Lead Agency: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714)667-2713 Project Proponent: Legacy Partners 5141 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92617 (949)-930-7700 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin & Associates 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (949)454-1800 April 10, 2019 751-196 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN 1.1 Introduction This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Sunflower Legacy Apartments project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, 'The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision -makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. 1.2 Project Overview The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing Sound Church at 651 Sunflower Avenue and construct 226 apartments in a five -story building and a six level parking structure on a on a 3.59-acre site. The parking structure includes one level of subterranean parking and five levels above ground and is proposed for the middle of the site along the northern project boundary. The five -story apartment building would be wrapped around the five level parking structure on three sides. The apartment building and the parking structure would front Sunflower Avenue. The project includes a central outdoor courtyard with a swimming pool and spa, outdoor furniture, bar-b-ques, outdoor yoga and fitness court and restrooms at the apartment building on the west side of the site. A central fitness center, clubroom and business center/conference room, mailroom, parcel room, bike storage area and apartment leasing area are proposed for the westerly apartment building. The project includes studio, one -and two -bedroom apartments ranging in average size of 612 square feet for the studio apartments, 670 square feet for the one -bedroom apartments and 1,105 square feet for the two -bedroom apartments. The apartment building would be 75 feet in height to the top of roof and the parking structure would be 70 feet in height. The project proposes 452 parking spaces, including 10 subterranean parking spaces and handicap spaces. Four bicycle parking spaces are proposed. A total of 227 storage units are proposed for all five levels in the parking structure, including 20 storage units in the subterranean parking level, for use by the residents. Landscaping is proposed within the required setbacks along all sides of the site. The existing student drop-off area for Taft Elementary school is adjacent to and north of the site and would remain with the project. An emergency vehicle access route is proposed along the north project boundary for emergency vehicle access from both the west and east sides of the site at Sunflower Avenue. The project is scheduled to be constructed in two phases. Project construction would start in the first quarter of 2020 and the first phase completed in October 2021. The second phase is scheduled to be completed in December 2021 or early 2022. The project proposes Modern architecture. Sunflower Legacy Apartments — Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan April 10, 2019 Page 1 751-197 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and post - occupancy). The City will ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying discussion of: • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ❑ Project review and prior to project approval ❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit ❑ On -going during construction ❑ Throughout the life of the project • The enforcement agency; and • The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MMP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). Sunflower Legacy Apartments — Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan April 10, 2019 Page 2 751-198 Y a1 � R C E m c. � E 0 U y O _ � O m V w y � A > C N C C O i _ Cf,_ Q 'y O ,y N Q O U) c C 0 ° C oa R 2 d w Crn c 0 E CO c ' R m « a a Q D C (n 0 C Tc E o > y0R 0CL a) �RD7 od R �c EQ ~ J O 0 c O c= o) a) ca �On N _ c y.0 Ro E ° U 0) i= ono a sea) R O) a) a) m a) O — 'O a) y R a) '� 0 a) a) cn 0 a) L = cc co 0 0 C L U C C 7 y C R R a) \0 I L " L N> V O > '= U C _ t U) 'p 21 o x o ff> E U E _ m � � ° 3a m a) 3:-0 a) O a) cg= Q L O cca m t Co a`) 0 y 3a ` 7 U C y O O W a) y y y0 a) U 0) a) 7 '� N co G O. O "y0 > O' 'V U) Cl C1 v) N O N C OI.F •O) ti C m a) E= y C 2 a) 11J y 0 a) p y O a) O � >T a)_ a) L .O � C N > R O.O a) R.. C. .•. aS Vl «' >p 7 C y a L C O) Q N 'O C V a d .'-' 'V) V) V) C ai R y a) ,� a C O O) y O E a) O a= O o a; mom= E c° °'� y o a� .O L a7 y C� 0 R a) L a) E o L o— o.QO O 0 V O-0 :O U > �.v_ O �" U :? ca mrnw c Cr C �') p•._ : C V 7 0 ;� a) O O N OU N0c L) Q) O O O ay Oa C�a .a) y C1R F OUUL _ E>«O yO — N = O O oa >R yNaO O OR aEa0Q a (L'D c O y R y E O) N gZ x 751-199 fA m a7 c E a E 0 U m w O � _ G O « of 4= N '� l0 C _ _ %, M= O C C Q O C C Q.N = a f5 m '> m O ca0 N❑ O Cn O) Cn O) C O N O -0 O -0 a �m >, = �m tm w = C C Eo CL = o w C �� ma a`) a N O O C d mc�'i1O a a�i a�i ,0 M IM p, a) ❑ ❑ m I.- �c J E� O d C 3o a o= oa 8 CMo=_ 0o E::a0 aL) o oE o 2 o F Oc m e U Oc m e U o p L L C uj m a) 0 a) w m tl) O C C— O tm O — w •O m ai C .0 w CoC UI C O O C O a7 m .m_...�> w C V) C CTO N N o U 'O m E U 'y U (y`6 " N c�Lo .0 C m m0 d m (n ctY� a7 .�. ❑. x���0E� X m 7 ,� U n` cc N U m O a) m co Q 0 N C U L L C y m 3 Q N U a) a) m 3 E O U C C N W y 'm m— E (D L .0 N �':c O C a) _« aEU Em N amp _ tias°oCL U i }L 0 o-0 ` m w a) m .L-. C L` m C u o CJ a'N . 3 ` o y p 0 N V) m R c o)� o o c o m c c mw rnL 3 0 �' m m` c m` > a) m am cw'm m EEc a`6i g'0mooma)c. — U) o N N N a)0.0U C O — S� ono' O E 3 o al cZ,m0� N a w a w N L U m Cn m U 0 m O U "= ` O O) 0) a7 C w m — W Co C C a) O L a O C O 0 c O O C O O L O O 3 U ❑ a7 U U E a) U m H W N a5 � C � O m « J3 E 4) N _rn Z Z 0 751-200 m A C C Q 'U5 Co C Q C C a C C a C C a N C a R 'j N R 'j N R '> N R '> co 'j .O ,y N� cO c 6 N� mQ C O c w 0)w G C C C O O o O o Oa O-0 O-O � Um Um Um Um Um C O .A. :° ° a a o. a a 4r N C O N O N O N O N O 0)d M N N N N N E� U U U U U a) a) N a) a) '0 C 0) O 'O^ C 0) 2 O "0 C 0) o OCL= C 'O^ O O) "2 C 0) O CLZ- c'o>> o>> o>> o 2 o j°7 �o mob °)ob °)o mob F c CD C O O O) C C 0) C O C O) C O c 0) C O p U p U 70 0 p U 7O 0 w 7 N d 2 a a) a) O a) a) a) a) O :6 Co Vl E -E'N N N 0) C U C 7 0 co C R •— i a) a) O a) a r- R a) a) o C N '0 . C L N — R N O U n a) N N R a) V a ` a) N C R 2 c L N O j N O �)rnc 0 m N c U Co w CD O U N N ai C N "O 3 N N 7 C a) R C R R 0 c R o E Z a) V C N 2 R E a7 cc'O 'O o REcio Om p,'O m a)a C L a D— U a) •C L) 7 N a) L Q O a) 0 0 7 (a O" L Fd3ocMa�a)NNa 0 1 N —cw c 0) —a) L 0 0° c N U O c j N N O 0 C C ° a) R U N a) O a) 4_ R m 4_. C O C0°wa2 =>a= a _EN o— 0)a) N awa R ° o a L O -le CO O` 7 U — L) N y rL a N 0 C 5 C O C o 0 o a�Yi ° a` 0r E 0 U) o y co C j a) C d '= E C E U E nL U H'E N U 11 1 0o 751-201 711, T c 0 FL rN+ C Ep 0. m01 Q� a Tc R —Np m rn R o) c ~ J O L Gl c = C Nw R rn wi 2 y C O C o C C'4 C@ O ` p)_ Q •N Q •y Q C O O Q C •N L• N C❑ C❑ C 0) > U° C y❑ ca o w 0-0 0-0 o m �aQ o °)'c co U m m U a m C o« o a a a N _ O O O O c E a a) > > > aa)) a) a) aa)) ❑ ❑ ❑ E)❑ w a)�oo= C 0)L O Caw. C_ wo@ co Nco 7 0 0 m E o cuw. E L o� `m ° °)o: L o w°> i=aN m N a c me oo0 ° m o a o CD aN` °>1 _ _w a@ w UL a) w C « 3 U) a LL V N m @ N a a) C C d .N.. @ > N cV'o C Z o aa) co o w a > Q — L O7 w C = = o N 3ID 0 0 0 rn to 3 (n •o a) a) a) Co 41 @ a ° @ o 0 N a� CN a) E L c p N C T C > 2 w r a�io3o3n Loa` o n 0 0 E o E E N •O ) 9 O @ 7 @ N O N F= oL°0 L�w.c cpcL>� w C @ @ L t o N ` O C@ @ co Z N O E o _ o _ a) cc 7 E E c c o ° `-' N Q CD a)m c �L m u CLMr— d a)EcEc°�E:p�°E��. a) in CLO G Q Q m wcTia)f0`mo0O �a)cQoUpN�Qao`)a�ii a° Lo a oo c"O m o �Z��po °o°>c0acc)¢ d oCA o Zn Cc a) o, J ' a N m f0 EL 751-202 C m EL C C d� E O m N o. W r Tc m � me ~ J O L Y d C 02 r C C N w m tm A C C O O C C O °> �a m m'> C•#A c j5 O N O CI E O :p N 0 0 Ol O) C C E c-6 ct rn m rn o 0 C O U C o U tm m tp `) a) —O a) a a) m w w 0 m a U 0 O a ` y o a) Q` c w o m o m a) g a) top a) a p w c m m O U C w 7 C « a) ¢ N C = m E � cOi U) a USC a) 0O y - 0 > U + C O m �aZU) fA m m rn� O� C N m C CIO �' 7•� o-0= r 0 000o. Emoa) _:c rn0 a, `o)a E -r- a) w�cL o � aai c m 0 O_ C N .-.1 tm E O V 0 .L'..7�.. o C o a) 7 ca)E Ec u0>�00w a Q Q, U m C E Z o a Q. m C m a) IN m cm 01 o O) nm?) C rn� �» Z 7 7 m a N a) 0) 0) U An H m0-0-0 �m a) 0)w 0= U C a y :n O C wrno cc�=F o L 0 0 — " m O L cc o C00)y�o0 E a) a)000�C7 0�t� EU c .'❑aa) U E6 Q _ L O a) a)0>aw�` Um -L C c L] 1p U) O= U i. V Q @ m N U o.« O arn a)) mcm a)a mp �F-� E 7c`m~ m cc 0 0 Q C a) U W (D L C a) m a�iaE2E 07c77N7c E7caZi m m> v0) M I y N p CD d zC7m"IO2oo3 �130 v 751-203 Y Ly � m c E m .Q � E O U a O m r O O A O CC. N >= C C_ a , � N .0. C � '= O 0 a m a � w c mt E O 0 c 0« C.� Q .. LO c _ dC IM M me ~ J O E� d C O C C O) 7 � c N m m 1- (0 C 0« 7 :0 C U L L C« O= r Lo 'ct O) N C �_ m U) - IO 3 (D O O 7- m O U ,,T, p p LCO m m o °' V x ° 3 aLL c N OS U_ z, N 00 0 C O O U c Ln w'vLU wt Fu 0 L' Ufn O N 0 C« 0 0 0. c0 3 C 0 A d N« C w (6 0) a)0 ca 0) = o w � a) � � 5 a) Ln d 0 U) 0) 0) a) O U C O. E p U) Ci 0 ], wO L 0 O 0 U O Ci d .O+ 7 0 �0.. C (0 � C U) 0) c N L C W O.w Nt.=iO C O y «� a rnE =z 751-204 EXHIBIT 3 LS 6.4.19 RESOLUTION NO.2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-01 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City. B. On February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time. C. Legacy Partners (Applicant) is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 to amend the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban Neighborhood (UN) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community on the 3.59- acre property. D. On January 2, 2019, pursuant to Senate Bill 18, the City mailed consultation letters to all tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Tribal Consultation List. The consultation period has since concluded. E. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing. The public hearing was opened, public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2019, F. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. G. On June 4, 2019, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard, the project was fully considered, and all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution occurred. H. General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 has been filed to amend the General - Plan to change the land use designation of the property at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Low -Density Residential (LR) to Urban 751-205 Neighborhood (UN). Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Review No. 2018- 75 meets all the requirements of CEQA. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons. The existing General Plan land use designations for the project site at 651 West Sunflower Avenue is Low -Density Residential (LR), which allows single-family homes at a density up to seven (7) units per acre. In order to facilitate the construction of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community with a floor area ratio of 1.81, the land use designation needs to be changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN), which allows for a mix of residential uses and housing types, such as low- to mid -rise multiple family, townhouses, single family dwellings; with some opportunities for live -work, neighborhood serving retail and service, public space and use, and other amenities with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 to 3.0. 2. The proposed community at 651 West Sunflower Avenue supports several goals and policies of the General Plan. The project is consistent with: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. The project will pay approximately $2,813,475 in in -lieu fees pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 1904 to provide additional funds for future affordable housing projects, which supports Housing Element Goal 3: Increased opportunities for low and moderate income individuals and families to find quality housing opportunities and afford a greater choice of rental or homeownership opportunities. Further, the project is consistent with several Housing Element policies; Policy HE-2.3 to encourage construction of rental housing for the city's residents and workforce; and Policy HE- 751-206 3.4 to support the provision of employment training, childcare services, rental assistance, youth services, and other community services that enable households to attain the greatest level of self-sufficiency and independence. H. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1, to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. The project is consistent with LU policies 1.2, to maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City; LU policies 4.3 and 4.4, to support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits and that promote the City's image as a regional activity center; and LU policies 5.5 and 5.7, to encourage development that is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses and that does not exceed available infrastructure capacity. lii. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6, to reduce residential overcrowding. The project is in close proximity to major transit corridors on Sunflower Avenue and Main and Bristol streets, as well as the San Diego (1-405) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) freeways. The project site is located in an area with high development intensities near the Bristol Street commercial and office corridor in Santa Ana and near a large employment center across Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. The multiple -family residential development will complement the mid -rise residential communities and high-rise office towers nearby and supports an already -thriving mixed use portion of the City of Santa Ana. iv. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community Image, and quality environment. The project is consistent with LID policies 1.1 and 1.11, having been designed with high -quality design, materials, finishes, and construction, and integration with visual and physical links among districts, nodes, significant sites, landmarks, and other points of interest. The project will maintain and enhance an existing plaza to the southwest of the project site and will retain a public art installation already in place. The project has been designed with an enduring, contemporary architectural style that complements the existing developments in the vicinity while reducing aesthetic and physical impacts to surrounding land uses. The project site is located on a major arterial roadway and is adjacent to gateways into the City at Main Street/Sunflower Avenue and Bristol StreettSunflower Avenue, adjacent to the cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine. The City Council has weighed and balanced the General Plan's policies, both new and old, and has determined that based upon this balancing that General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 is consistent with the purpose of 751-207 the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. The amendments to the Land Use Element are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 5 below. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS- (AA No. 2019-01) to rezone the property from Single -Family Residential (R- 1) to Specific Development (SD) No. 94 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 6. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 7. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Planning and Building Agency shall give direct notice to the Applicant of the City Council's decisions and these findings. 751-208 ADOPTED this 4t" day of June 2019. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Lisd Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Norma Mitre, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2019. Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 751-209 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element 1998 City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2, 1998 (Reformatled January 2010) The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by the Santa Ana City Council Febn ary 2, 1998 (GPA 1997- 05): GPA 2014-02(Oclober 21.2014) GPA 2006-01(October2,2006) GPA 2001-03(February 19, GPA 201401(Joe d 2014) GPA 2005-01(December S. 2005) GPA 2001-02(Jaouoy 7,r GPA2011-03(March 19, 2012) GPA 2ODS-02(OcIDber 17,2005) GPA 2DOO-09(May 7, 2001) GPA 2011-02(Joe 6, 2011) GPA20MI(Aol 5. 2005, es passed by GPA 200D408(February 5,2 GPA 201MI(June 7,2010) the valms of Santa Ana) GPA 200"3 (December 4, GPA 200842(Juh 20, 2009) GPA 200404(July 19, 2004) GPA 20DO02(Noveraber 2f GPA 2007-03 (May 16, 2009) GPA 2004-06 (July 6, 2004) GPA 199902 (October 18,1 GPA 200801(Mal 5, 2008) GPA 2003-02 (June 16, 2003) GPA 19MI (August 16, 1! GPA2004-03 (February 2, 2009) GPA 2003-01(February 18, 2003) GPA 19WU (October 5,15 GPA20D7-02(Joe 18, 2007) GPA 2002-01(September 3, 2002) GPA 19M5(Septembar2 GPA20D7.01(March 1% 2007) GPA 2002-03(August 19,2002) CPA 19mi(May 4,1998) 751-210 LAND USE ELEMENT areas. To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office and commercial uses, within these areas both building intensity and residential density is based on floor area ratio and zoning development standards. In calculating either the allowable floor area or the allowable residential density, it is the City's policy to not allow upward rounding. The Land Use Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Additional information concerning the Land Use Plan and the land use designations is provided in Table 1 (Land Use Development Intensity Standards), and in the Appendix. Table 1 Development Intensity Standards Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LR-7) Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) Medium Density Residential (MR-15) District Centel lDCl etc.) Heritage District Center Downtown District Center Metro East District Center Transit Village District Center _ Harbor Corridor District Center Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Senerstrom, First Afth 61P Conidt Harbor Corridor Metro East Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) General Commercial (GC) One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) f Industrial (IND) i Institutional (INS) Open Space (0) Density/Intensity Standards (dulacre - FAR)' 1.0-2.0 FAR 1.7 FAR 3.0 FAR 3.0 FAR 0.75.1.5 FAR 0.5.1.0 FAR 0.5-1.0 FAR 2.9 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.5 FAR 0.2 Notes: ' The intensity standards shown refer to the theoretical maximum amount of development permitted for each land use designation (du -dwelling units: FAR -floor area ratio). Development must also adhere to zoning regulations, and/or specific plan requirements. The District Center and Urban Neighborhood land use designations permit both residential and non-residential development. ] Commercial intensities may vary. Baseline FAR is 0.5, Speck areas allowing greater intensities are Indicated in Exhibit A-3. ' One Broadway Plaza District Center land use designation permits office, restaurant and ancillary retail for a master planned development. *Refer to Appendix for description of Land Use designations. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 751-211 )!\! E - | !F )f}tz§yf#\�) e { / ) �. � 0 j\ \ 751- 12 LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To effectively achieve the broad range of goals outlined for the City's future growth and development, a variety of plans, programs, and regulations must be relied upon. This section of the Element discusses these tools, and how they correlate with implementation of the City's land use goals. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS Table A- t summarizes the development intensity standard for each of the General Plan designations, and provides land use distribution by acreage for the land use. The intensity standards for the categories permitting residential development are expressed in density, measured in "units per acre,' or Floor area ratio and zoning development standards in the case of certain Mixed Use land use designations. The intensity standards for non-residential development are expressed as "floor area ratio' or FAR. The FAR concept is illustrated in Exhibit A-3. The intensity standards in concert with the zoning and development standards regulate the massing, form and building size. Table A-1 Development IntensRv Standards Lead Use DesignationsResidential Land Use Low Density 7 du/acre -Medium Deraft 11 dtdacm _low Medium Densitlj 15 dulacre DesignationsMiked Use Land Use District Center Other District Centers (Midtown, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0.2.0 Heritage District Center_ __ Di FAR 1.7 FAR 3.0 Downtown District Center Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 _ Transit Yee District Center FAR 5.0 _ _ Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 Urban Neighborhood Transit ZoningCode Area/ ,y Se e� rst�om First, Filth d 1r Skeet -Corridor FAR 0.5- -,80 Harbor Cwn* FAR 3.0 Metro East I FAR 0.75.1.5 DesignationsCommercial Land Use ProbselonallAdmin. Office FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial FAR 0.5-1.0 One B Plm Disaiet Center- FAR 2.9 Designationsjindustrial Land Use Industrial FAR 0.45 Designationsfier.Land Use IltstWtlon� FAR 0.5 Open Space FAR 0.2 NOW du - dwWg unit FAR • floor art rate • Residential develowert is riot a penrnted use. CITY OF SAWA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-11 751-213 ..:: [a�� w R f ® 7) § : \ { %E,E! \\\\\\\ /�/ k ,. §>« 2 ! !i�!',- c ƒ ! R f � 751- 14 LAND USE ELEMENT Residenfiol The Land Use Plan provides for three distinct residential land use designations. Residential development is also permitted in two other designations: District Center and Urban Neighborhood. The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes the following residential land use designations: A-20 The Low Density Residential (LR-7) designation applies to those areas of the City which are developed with lower density residential land uses. The allowable maximum development intensity is 7 units per acre. Development in this category is characterized primarily by single-family homes. This designation applies to a large proportion of the City (645+6- 6.451.0 acres) representing 47 percent of the City's total land area. The Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at permitted densities of up to I 1 units per acre. The land area included in this designation is approximately 420.6 acres. The great majority of the land designated as Low -Medium Density Residential is located in the westerly portion of the City, north and south of First Street. Properties with this designation are typically characterized by mobile home parks, a mixture of duplexes and single family residences, or small lot subdivisions. The Medium Density Residential (MR-15) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at densities of up to 15 units per acre. Development in this designation is characterized by duplexes, apartments, or a combination of both. A total of 362.3 acres is designated as Medium Density Residential. The designation applies to areas located in the vicinity of downtown, areas north and south of MacArthur Boulevard, and in other areas where there are established multiple -family development projects. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 751-215 LAND USE ELEMENT The intensity standard for the Urban Neighborhood ranges from a floor area ration of 0.5 to 3.0; with residential density based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning development standards. A total of313.1 317.0 acres of land in the City are designated Urban Neighborhood. Industrial The Industrial designation applies to those areas developed with manufacturing and industrial uses. The designation applies to areas which are predominantly industrial in character, and includes those industrial districts in the southwestern, south central and southeastern sections of the City. A total of 2,152.8 acres of land in the City is designated as Industrial. The maximum floor area ratio for this designation is 0.45. The Industrial districts of the City are vital to its economic health. These areas provide employment opportunities for local residents, and generate municipal revenues for continued economic development. As one of the County's oldest cities, Santa Ana has long been an industrial center for the region. The City's goal is to maintain this strong industrial base by setting land use policies which preclude the intrusion of less intensive commercial or residential uses. Typical uses found in this district include the following: Light and heavy product manufacturing and assembly. • Commercial uses which are ancillary to industrial uses in the district Institutional The Institutional designation includes the Civic Center, other governmental facilities, City facilities and public institutions such as schools, etc. Only public properties of approximately five acres or more are designated as Institutional. The maximum applicable floor area ratio standard for this designation is 0.5. The 0.5 FAR is used as a guideline since most development in this designation are State, federal, and local governmental facilities that are not subject to local development regulations. A total of 800.6 acres of land is included in this designation. Open Space The Open Space designation is applied to parks, water channels, cemeteries and other open space uses. A total of 1,010.9 acres are included in this land use designation. Of this total, 358 acres of public park land is included in this land use designation. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-25 751-216 LAND USE ELEMENT interagency Development Review Committee (DRC) to ensure consistent and comprehensive application of City regulations and policies for all projects. Redevelopment Plans. The City will apply redevelopment tools associated with the implementation of the adopted redevelopment plans, as appropriate. The City will encourage the further development of industrial, commercial, and residential projects in suitable locations to strengthen the City's tax and employment base. Special Studies. In certain instances, a special study may be required to address a particular issue. In these cases, a specific effort to identify staff resources needed to conduct the appropriate investigation and analysis will be identified. Zoning Code Review. The zoning code serves as a primary tool used by the City to regulate development. The City will develop a program to revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and standards are consistent with community needs and high quality development. The City will initiate appropriate changes to the ordinance to ensure, where appropriate, conformity between the Land Use Element and Zoning Map. LAND USE PLAN BUILDOUT As indicated previously, the City of Santa Ana has been almost completely developed for many years. As a result, any new development will necessarily consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. Many parcels with nonresidential land use designations will never be developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan. Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build -out of the Land Use Plan. The build -out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build -out for residential development is calculated by adding the 2l, 256 21.482 units possible in the areas designated as District Center and Urban Neighborhood to the existing 74,588 units presently found in the City perCensus 2000. Theoretical build -out for residential development considered the development possible if all ofthe areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination ofexisting housing in the Cit y the effective build -out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, three of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build -out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build -out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less Floor area A-34 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 751-217 [n_219XIAi4lTli:iIt for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between 76-,499-76a699 to 95,54396 069 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical buildout scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple -family developments constructed in the 1970's and 1980's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless ofthe character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4, up to 32,257,051 square feet of commercial and office development, and 42,199,991 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A35 751-218 Land Use LAND USE ELEMENT Table A-4 Use Plan Build -out Capacities Intenalyl EdaOveBulldout' Theoretical Gena1N I Bulldout Low Density Residential LP-7 '6 7 dWao Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 4206.11 dahac Medium Density Residential MR-15 1 362.3 150* Subtotal District Center Other' Heritage Downtown Metro East Transit Village Harbor Corridor Urban Neighborhood Subtotal DO 309.5 90 du ho FAR 1.0.2.0 DC 19.9 PAR 1.7 DC 62.5 FAR&0 DC 113.9 FAR 0.75.3.0 DC 51.4 FAR 5.0 DC 125.0 FAR5.0 U9 � -98.1 flea c Mill ,7.0 Professional 5 Admin. Office PAO General Commercial OCR One Broadway Plaza District Ctrs ITW-1 Subtotal j 4,627 du 5,435 du 1,955,50 if &M7 du 23_,7-64,5-34 ed�— —3,(17 du 54,090 a 1R21 dv 54,000 a 1,22f Al 2,057,924 C I,N1de 2,057,821 1a 661 du 2.464,776 e1 9A97 dlf 2,41 e . 5.W du 4 re,964 a 2,781 du 402,864 a' Z761 du 1,935,155a 2X9du 1,936,tsser 2,1129du 1,656,955 a it 111 a5 Ai 1,656,955 a:, ll Au 0,42 ?all IM491I 92iW.1Nall FAR 0.5.1.0 13,011115,424 a''.. FAR 0.5.1.0 19,9 knit at FAR2.9 5,113,111113111111 26,170,848 st 37,256,868 st 543,193 sf 63,970,909 at Industrial MID 2,152.8 fAR 0.45 42,199,991 sf 42.199,991 sf Institutional INS 800.6 FAR 0.2-0.5 6,974,740 sf 17,436,850 st Open Space OS 1,010.9 FAR 0.2 8,806,961 sf 8,806,961 st Subtotal 1,811.5 15,781,701 of 25,243,111 it FAR -floor area ratio, d.u.=dwelling unit , s.I =square feet (of door area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-ol-way. 1 Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown Distinct Center Hentage District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Harbor Comdor District Center, Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Carder, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity lot mcdure of residential and non-residental development based on the toning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 21 481 411-;25-iunlls possible In the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) lousing units. land use designation permits both residential and non-residential development. Budd -out assumes 90%of land area will be dweloped as commercial and 10% win be developed as residential, with the exception of Town and Country Manor project Intended for continuum of care and housing seniors. ' Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond wish the GIS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. CITI' OISAIJLA �,rV, GLI IrPAL PIN'J 751-219 751-220 EXHIBIT 4 6.4.19 LS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-01 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 651 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 (SD-94) (AA NO. 2019-01) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 94 (SD-94) FOR SAID PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Amendment Application No. 2019-01 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to change the zoning designation of the parcel located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Single -Family Residence (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94) zoning designation described in Exhibit A. General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01 was filed concurrently with the Amendment Application for consistency with the General Plan. B. The zoning designation of the Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94) would facilitate the development of a 226-unit multiple -family residential community with private community space and supportive service offices and bring the rezoned property into consistency with the General Plan land use designation of Urban Neighborhood (UN). C. On April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. The public hearing was opened, public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2019. D. On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2019-01 which is consistent with the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01. E. The City Council has reviewed applicable general plan policies and has determined that this proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the General Plan. F. The City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2019. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 of 6 751-221 G. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019 accompanying this matter. H. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2019- 01 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, thus changing the zoning district is found to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts an ordinance rezoning the real property located at 651 West Sunflower Avenue from Single -Family Residence (R-1) to Specific Development No. 94 (SD-94), (AA No. 2019-01). Amended Sectional District Map number 36-5-10 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to; the Request for Council Action dated June 4, 2019, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Review No. 2018- 75 meets all the requirements of CEQA. Section 4. This ordinance shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2019- (Environmental Review No. 2018-75 and General Plan Amendment No. 2019-01)and Ordinance No. 2019- (Amendment Application No. 2019-01) are adopted and become effective. If either resolution and/or ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ' Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 of 6 751-222 Section 6. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. ADOPTED this _ day of , 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City (Attttorney By:L Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 of 6 751-223 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, NORMA MITRE, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2019 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Acting Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 4 of 6 751-224 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 94 Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower Apartments ("Legacy Sunflower") SECTION 1- APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE The Specific Development zoning district No. 94 (SD-94) for the Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower Apartments project is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26 Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SD No. 94 contains the specific standards and regulations contained in the residential district, as herein amended, for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and standards. All other applicable chapter, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are in effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained in this ordinance. SECTION 2- PURPOSE The Specific Development Plan No. 94 for the Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower Apartments project consists of standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of property. The Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower Apartments project Specific Plan Development Plan No. 94 (SD-94) sets forth the development and design criteria for a development consisting of approximately 3.59 acres. The purpose of this specific development plan is to permit flexibility in site planning and design to respond to market conditions while assuring high quality development SD No. 94 specifically establishes for the property the following: • Permitted Uses • Development Standards, including building heights limits, required setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping provisions and enforcement policies. • Publicly accessible plaza requirements • Maximum development intensity Objectives The objectives of the Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower project specific development plan include provision of the following: 1. Development of a multi -family residential project in an area that has a significant amount of office, commercial and retail uses within close proximity to the site via the Bristol and Main Street arterials. 2. Promotion of the City's image as providing high quality residential projects for individuals and families in all income groups. 3. A clean and safe environment for the City s residents, workers and visitors. Exhibit A Page 1 of 6 751-225 Specific Development No. 94 Legacy Sunflower 4. A visually harmonious development as viewed both internally and externally. 5. Flexibility in development in response to market conditions while achieving overall City and community goals. SECTION 3 - Uses permitted in Specific Development Plan No. 94 The following uses are permitted in SD-94 district: (a) One (1) Multiple -family development containing no more than 226 residential units, inclusive of any onsite manager unit(s) (b) Resident -serving, private amenities (e.g. leasing office, club room, fitness center, etc.) SECTION 4 - Uses subject to a conditional use permit in Specific Development No. 94 Not applicable SECTION 5 - Maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) The maximum authorized building intensity for the Legacy Partners 651 Sunflower Apartments project is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.81, including residential areas, community serving areas (e.g. leasing office, fitness center, club room, rooftop patios) and interior corridors exclusive of the parking structure. SECTION 6 - Minimum lot area in Specific Development No. 94 The developable lot for the project shall have a minimum lot area of 3.00 net acres. SECTION 7 - Minimum street frontage in Specific Development No. 94 The minimum street frontage on Sunflower Avenue shall be 550 feet. SECTION 8 - Building height in Specific Development No. 94. No structure shall exceed 75 feet in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade of a structure to the top of a structure. SECTION 9 - Development Standards in Specific Development No. 94. The Legacy Sunflower development shall be built as shown on the approved project plans as per Development Project No. 2018-19. The plans shall govern in the event there is a conflict between the SD with the project plans. In addition, the following standards are applicable to the project: Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 751-226 Specific Development No. 94 Legacy Sunflower (a) Setbacks. (1) A minimum setback of nine (9) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings on Sunflower Avenue (2) A minimum setback of forty-three (43) feet shall be provided between the interior side property lines and buildings (3) A minimum setback of thirty-five (35) feet shall be provided between the rear property line and buildings (b) Parkine. The minimum off-street parking requirements for the project are as follows: Two (2) stalls per dwelling unit, inclusive of guest parking. (1) A parking management plan must be submitted to the City for review prior to permit issuance for any above -ground structures. The parking management plan must be approved prior to issuance of the project's certificate of occupancy. The parking management plan must detail how residential parking will be assigned, detail operations of any proposed onsite valet services, and contain best management practices to address any reallocations of onsite parking that maybe required. (c) Pedestrian Walkways and Open Space. The project will provide a minimum of 200 square feet per unit of private (per unit) open space and common - private open space on the development site. (d) Walls/Fences. (1) A solid block wall with a minimum height of seven (7) feet shall be constructed along the eastern interior property line adjacent to residential developments. The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly -spaced decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions contained within the most recent version of the City's design guidelines. (2) A wrought iron or similar fence shall be constructed along the northern property line with necessary vehicular access points for elementary school drop-off. (3) A wrought iron or similar fence shall be constructed along a portion of the western property line adjacent to the storm drain channel. (4) Additional glass enclosures may be added to ground level patios along (1) Sunflower to mitigate sound and/or provide security and privacy. The maximum height of said patio walls, inclusive of opaque and transparent elements, is five (5) feet in height. (e) Landscapine. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to and be approved by the City of Santa Ana Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit and Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 751-227 Specific Development No. 94 Legacy Sunflower installed as required in the approved plans. Final landscape plan design shall conform to the standards and guidelines contained within the most recent version of the City's design guidelines. The landscape plan shall include approximately 15 percent open space (courtyards, common area amenities, perimeter plaza and open space) within the project site including the club room, courtyards, rooftop decks.) The landscape plan shall contain planting details, irrigation plans, and hardscape, furniture, and lighting details. (f) Architecture and Design Features. (1) Exterior materials. Exterior materials and finishes for the project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project during Building Division plan check. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the texture, material and color of the building. (2) Hardscape materials. Enhance paving materials shall be installed at the project main entrance and driveway entrances. The actual paving materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. (3) Lighting standards/fixtures. The light fixtures are to integrate design elements of the building and landscape architecture. Lighting is to be designed to confine the direct rays of the artificial lighting within the boundaries of the development. Specifications of light standards/fixtures and photometrics plan shall be submitted to Planning Division for approval. (g) Mechanical Equipment. Appurtenances and Conduits. All mechanical equipment and all supporting appurtenances and conduits shall be screened from view inside walls, behind parapets, or through a combination of landscape and hardscape materials. (h) Public Art. Public art shall be provided on the development site at a value of one-half percent (0.5%) of the building's valuation, inclusive of the residential and parking structure components. A public art plan shall be submitted to the City of Santa Ana Planning Division for review and approval prior to permit issuance for any above -ground construction on the project site. (i) Maintenance Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Property Maintenance Agreement must be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 751-228 Specific Development No. 94 Legacy Sunflower the Applicant) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); (b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, (c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; (d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); (e) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms, shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement. (g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 751-229 Specific Development No. 94 Legacy Sunflower authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City. (h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 751-230 RI 11 L R. mJONAV RI j RI E.R.L.. Y S&RRA OR RI - t«UxBiME W 2 b BRUAY RI V ERI R1 JVxPpa xv RI R1 2< R1 i. RI O REUER.v RI Q 7nwnnlr-- MlCZ-rCI!^TQ HAWEY.v RI c.R«Av 9 s�waA.n d c�ERaJw RI — R1 — q� fLUL EAV RI cunR.v 3 RI °x a RIBELLAW g g RI Rl xVxE.v AL ai RI 'V CS ACARTHURBLVD RlFRD Rl RD JUM®L.xV E I EP V LS E 0. i wax x 2 w R1FRD Pt f - g1iRD Z R W W lAR > ^ OMPHYAV AURgU J.0 RuA 14AWJ..v Fj^M1 a RIRW I -'`AR4' FELLER Av RI e RI RI ^ NOSEAv R1 ix.EELW R1 a RI Xep RI RI R ................................... —. Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CEM SOODI MAN STREET COMMERCIAL DST. R2 TWO-FAMLYRESDENCE -B PARKNGMODFICATION Cl COMMUNTY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTPLE.FAMLY RESIDENCE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE CWD C2 COMMUNITY COMMERCAL-MUSEUM DST. GENERAL COMMERCIAL Ml M2 LIGHTNDUSTRAL HEAVY NOUSTRIAL W RE SUBURSANAPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL ESTATE PRD PLANNEDRESDENTWL DEVELOPMENT CC PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER 0 OPENSPACE SD SPECFICDEVELOPMENT -HD2 HEDHTDSTRICTI C5 ARTERWLCOMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECFCPLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RI SNGLE-FAMLYRESDENCE SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP: 36-5-10 e CITY OF SANTA ANA, CAUFORNIA Exhibit: 751-231 751-232