Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 41 - Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02Planning and Building Agency santa-ana.org/departments/planning-and-building/ Item # 41 or City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Staff Report December 20, 2022 TOPIC: Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the Property Located at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue. AGENDA TITLE: Amendment Application No. 2022-01 to Change the Zoning District From Professional to Light Industrial and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 Appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to Permit the Establishment of Distribution Uses within an Industrial Building to be Constructed at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 and upholding the determination of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 as conditioned, and 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rob Mitchell (Applicant), representing Greenlaw Partners (Property Owner), is requesting approval of two entitlements for the Garry Avenue Business Park, a 91,500-square foot industrial structure proposed at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval an Amendment Application (AA) to change the property's zoning district from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1), and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow distribution uses. The request is being recommend for approval because the project has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties, will satisfy a growing need for warehousing and distribution services in the region, and will provide investment in an existing industrial/office area of the City. Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 2 Prior Planning Commission Action At its regular meeting on August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission received a report and staff presentation, and public comments, on the subject application. During the public hearing, representatives of the adjacent property at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue spoke in opposition to the project, raising concerns about the potential impacts of truck traffic between the two properties. To provide the applicant sufficient time to propose solutions limiting truck traffic between the two properties, the Planning Commission continued the item to the regular meeting on October 10, 2022, from the meetings of August 22nd and September 261" of 2022. After receiving a staff presentation and public comments regarding the changes to the project, the Commission voted unanimously to 1) adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and 2) to forward Amendment Application No. 2022-01 to the City Council with a recommendation that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the zone change. Appeal Applications On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association, filed respective appeal applications, Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02, respectively, pertaining to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, or modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC). DISCUSSION Table 1: Project and Location Information Item Information Project Address and Council Ward 1700-1740 East Garry Avenue — Ward 4 Nearest Intersection Garry Avenue and Pullman Street General Plan Designation Existing Proposed Industrial/Flex (FLEX) - 3 Industrial/Flex (FLEX) — 3 (no change) Zoning Designation Professional (P) (inconsistent with General Plan) Light Industrial (Ml) (consistent zoning with General Plan) Surrounding Land Uses North Professional Offices East I Professional Offices Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 3 Item Information South Vacant (Alton Avenue right-of-way) and Industrial West Costa Mesa SR-55 Freeway Site Size 5.13 acres Existing Site Development Developed with three professional office buildings containing a total of 105,558 square feet, constructed between 1972 and 1974 Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a zone change and CUP Zoning Code Sections Affected Development Standards Section 41-471 et seq. Uses Section 41-472.5 i Project Description The applicant is requesting to demolish three office buildings with a total of 105,558 square feet to construct a 91,500-square foot, 43.5-tall industrial building for warehousing and distribution purposes. Of the total square footage, 81,500 square feet will be used for warehousing and distribution activities, and 10,000 square feet will be used for supportive/ancillary office areas. A total of 10 loading docks will be provided at the rear (south) portion of the building. The building has been designed to allow the construction of future demising wall to create two tenant spaces. In addition to the new structure, the site will be improved with new landscaping, paving, onsite parking, and improvements to the public right-of-way. The improvements include onsite landscaping and a landscape edge along the SR-55 Freeway that takes into account the freeway's future widening, scheduled to begin in 2022. In addition, the project site will provide 145 onsite parking spaces, an onsite employee amenity area, enhanced paving at driveway entrances, new curb and gutter, street lights, and paving along the project frontage on Garry Avenue. Although not required, the project will provide an onsite walkway for pedestrians along the project frontage. The design of the structure is contemporary, with exterior finishes that would enhance the building's presence along the SR-55 Freeway. The building will contain a mixture of materials, including performance vision glass, metal awnings, and concrete panels painted in white, various shades of tan and brown, and soft green hues. The building's elevations have been designed to allow for placement of future wall signage to ensure compliance with applicable SAMC requirements. The project is intended to be constructed in a single phase. Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 4 Project Analysis Table 2: Conformance to Light Industrial (M1) Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided Building Height Unlimited if in Height District II Complies; 43.5 Feet Minimum Lot Size and 12,000 square feet size and Complies; 223,463 square Street Frontage 100 feet of street frontage feet and 330 feet Setbacks 10 feet if along a non -arterial Complies; 26 feet provided roadway None alongside/rear property Complies; 10-foot landscape lines buffer provided at east, south, and west property lines Parking 1 space per 1,000 square feet Complies; 92 parking spaces for warehouses with required and 145 parking distribution services spaces provided. Of these, the developer will construct 8 spaces for use by the adjacent property, to be accessible via a recorded easement, to ensure ongoing compliance with SAMC parking requirements Landscaping Minimum 5-foot landscape Complies; 26 feet provided strip along non -arterial along Garry Avenue and 10 roadways, and Minimum 10- feet provided along east, foot landscape strip where south, and west property lines abutting non -industrial properties Screening Minimum 8-foot high wall Complies; 10-foot high wall required where loading proposed at south property activities occur line to screen loading docks from Alton Avenue right-of- way Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum 3.0 Com lies; 0.43 Proposed As shown in Table 2 above, the proposed project meets the development standards of the proposed M1 zoning district designation for which a change in land use classification from Professional to Manufacturing is being sought. Additionally, the project and site plan have been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties by placing the building's loading docks to face south toward the vacant Alton Avenue right-of-way to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto adjacent developed properties. The site plan, as designed, would continue to meet development standard of the M-1 zone if Caltrans builds the Alton Avenue bridge over the SR-55 Freeway by providing a solid screen wall with 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the freeway, which will allow for mature trees, Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 5 shrubs, and groundcover to be maintained long-term along the westerly (freeway - adjacent) property line. Lastly, the project site is in an area identified by the General Plan for industrial uses, pursuant to the Industrial/FLEX land use designation. Vehicles and trucks entering and departing from the project site will not travel through any neighborhoods containing sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, or parks. The new General Plan also designates surrounding properties Industrial/FLEX, and Garry Avenue and Pullman Street provide direct access to the SR-55 Freeway by way of the Dyer Road interchange, a driving distance of half a mile (0.50 miles). Amendment Application The subject site is zoned Professional (P). The development standards pertaining to the Professional zoning district would render the project unfeasible, as warehousing and distribution uses are prohibited by the P zoning district. Approval of an amendment application to change the zoning district to Light Industrial (M1) is required for the project. The General Plan identifies on Table LU-A-1 that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The project has been designed to conform to all applicable standards of the M1 zoning district. Although warehousing uses are permitted by -right in the M1 zoning district, distribution uses require approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. The zoning district designation of M1 enables the applicant to request the required CUP application to permit or conditionally permit the proposed distribution use. Moreover, the proposed M1 zoning district designation is consistent with the new Industrial/FLEX General Plan Land Use Element designation for the site. This land use designation by the General Plan encourages developments that provide context appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. The building has been designed to feature taller height and contemporary finishes to ensure it remains aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area, even as adjacent properties may redevelop with new industrial or mixed -use office, industrial, and/or research and development uses. Conditional Use Permit CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 6 To operate a warehouse and distribution facility, the project requires approval of a CUP pursuant to Section 41-472 (i) of the SAMC. Approval of the CUP would be consistent with the General Plan and would not be injurious or detrimental to surrounding properties. As analyzed in previous sections of this report, the development has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties and comply with all applicable development standards for the M1 zoning district. In addition, the project site is located within an area that is not near sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks. Moreover, access to the SR-55 Freeway is provided at the Dyer Road interchange, by way of Garry Avenue and Pullman Street, a distance of less than 0.50 driving miles. Lastly, the loading docks have been positioned at the south of the building in order to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto surrounding properties. Approval of the CUP and amendment application would also be consistent with various goals and policies of the General Plan as follow: • Goal LU-2: Land Use Needs — Provide a balance of land uses that meet Santa Ana's diverse needs. o Policy LU- 2.1 Employment Opportunities — Provide a broad spectrum of land uses and development that offer employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana residents. o Policy LU-2.6 Encourage Investment — Promote rehabilitation of properties and encourage increased levels of capital investment to create a safe and attractive environment. o Policy LU-2.7 Business Incubator. Support land use decisions that encourage the creation, development, and retention of businesses in Santa Ana. Goal LU-3: Compatibility of Uses — Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods and districts. o Policy LU-3.4 Compatible Development — Ensure that the scale and massing of new development is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding built environment. o Policy LU-3.7 Attractive Environment — Promote a clean, safe, and creative environment for Santa Ana's residents, workers, and visitors. o Policy LU-3.8 Sensitive Receptors — Avoid the development of industry and sensitive receptors in close proximity to each other that could pose a hazard to human health and safety due to the quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials utilized, or the hazardous waste an operation may generate or emit. Lastly, the amendment application is consistent with the General Plan Appendix A, Table LU-A-2. Interim Industrial Flex Uses for the M-1 that allows warehousing. Conditions of approval address construction -related and ongoing operational impacts that could result from the project, including the requirement to install the height -restriction bars Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 7 limiting truck traffic described in the Executive Summary portion of this report. Those conditions are attached as Exhibit A to the CUP resolution. Appeal Applications Pursuant to Section 41-645 an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission can be made by an interested party, individual or group. Two appeal applications were received appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. Appeal No. 2022-01: Molly Greene on Behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) The SAFER appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision based on lack of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to prepare a supplemental or tiered EIR for the project. SAFER's appeal states that the preparation of an exemption pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines fails to provide evidence to support the Exemption Checklist's findings that the project will not involve environmental effects that: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. Specifically, SAFER's appeal states that the project could have significant air quality impacts, health impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, therefore requiring additional CEQA analysis under Section 15183. The City has evaluated the project in full compliance with the provisions of CEQA. After a thorough evaluation and preparation of an initial study checklist, the City prepared an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." As detailed in the Environmental Impact section of this report, the project was fully evaluated to determine if there are any project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and none were subsequently determined. Therefore, the Section 15183 exemption prepared for the project is the appropriate form of Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 8 environmental review. A complete response to SAFER's appeal is provided as Exhibit 13 to this report. Appeal No. 2022-02. Melinda Luthin on Behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association The Garry Plaza Office Park Association appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision based on 21 factors that center largely on the issues of the Planning Commission public hearing and action to approve the CUP, existing easements on site, General Plan and zoning consistency, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) conformance. During its regular meeting on October 10, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the item in accordance with all SAMC and state requirements, after which it approved the CUP and recommended City Council approval of the Amendment Application. The Planning Commission packet prepared for the project contained all necessary information for the Planning Commission to evaluate the applicant's request. The issue of the onsite easements, also raised by the appeal, has been thoroughly evaluated and is analyzed in detail in Exhibit 15 attached to this report. The only cross -property easement between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east is a general, private easement for unspecified reciprocal ingress and egress and is therefore a civil matter between the two parties to resolve; to support this, a condition of approval on the CUP resolution requires that any reciprocal easements be modified or quitclaimed as needed prior to building permit issuance. Moreover, the project has been fully evaluated using the existing FLEX land use designation in the General Plan and using the proposed M1 zoning district designation. The proposed M1 zoning district designation will bring the site into consistency with the FLEX land use designation, and the project will conform to development standards prescribed by the M1 zoning district. Lastly, as described in the Environmental Impact section of this report and elaborated on in Exhibit 13, the project was fully evaluated for CEQA conformance, and the exemption prepared pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines is the required form of analysis for the proposed project. A full response to the 21 claims made in Appeal No. 2022-02 is provided as Exhibit 15, attached to this report. Public Notification and Community Outreach Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and office uses within the 1,000-foot radius. In addition to the standard notification requirements, the project is subject to community engagement requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 2-153). At the time the application was submitted, the Sunshine Ordinance required only one community Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 9 meeting; however, the applicant held two communities in order to provide ample public input opportunities to surrounding property owners. Both meetings were conducted virtually due to the ongoing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic at the time. The first community meeting was held July 8, 2021. Ten members of the community attended and posted questions relating to construction impacts and the site plan design. Because of this meeting, the original site plan was rotated 90 degrees clockwise to orient the loading docks from facing east to facing south, to minimize impacts onto properties to the north and east of the site. The second community meeting was held October 5, 2021, during which 11 members of the community attended and expressed satisfaction with the revised site plan and posed questions about traffic control, site screening, and construction impacts. Materials from both community meetings are included with this report as Exhibit 11, and all materials were published to the project's webpage on the City's website at santa-ana.org/garry-avenue-business-park. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet, and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR). As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and PRC Section 21083.3(b)). The State CEQA Guidelines further state that "[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards [... ] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c))." The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the certified Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit — 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 10 GPU EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions. The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. The GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. The Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of this report. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Amendment Application Ordinance 2. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution 3. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View 4. Site Photo 5. Site Plan 6. Floor Plan 7. Landscape Plans 8. Building Elevations 9. Renderings 10. Environmental Analysis and Exemption 11. Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Materials 12. Molly Greene (SAFER) Appeal No. 2022-01 13. City Response to Molly Greene (SAFER) Appeal No. 2022-01 14. Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 15. City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2022-01 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700, 1720, AND 1740 EAST GARRY AVENUE (APN 430-171-07) FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M1) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Rob Mitchell ("Applicant"), representing Greenlaw Partners ("Property Owner") is requesting approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2022-01 to change the zoning designation of the property located at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue (APN 430-171-07) from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1) in order to facilitate construction of a new, 91,500-square foot industrial warehouse and distribution building. B. Chapter 41, Article I, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes that because of the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land; and regulating the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open spaces, the City is divided into land -use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement. The regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City. The City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time. C. The entire Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of an existing 105,558 square foot office development consisting of three buildings constructed between 1972 and 1974; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a 91,500-square foot warehouse and distribution building with ancillary/supportive office spaces and mezzanines, and associated site and public -right-of-way improvements; (3) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to allow the use of the building as a distribution center; and (4) approval of Amendment Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 of 6 Application No. 2022-01 to change the site's zoning designation from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1). D. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance codified at Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-153, including public notification and hosting of required community meetings. Materials resulting from the meetings were subsequently posted to the City's webpage for the project. E. On August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01. Following information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to its regular meeting on September 26, 2022, after which the project was continued to its regular meeting on October 10, 2022. During said October 10, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01. F. On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association, filed respective appeal applications, Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02, respectively, for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the SAMC. The Conditional Use Permit application and two appeal applications are subject to concurrent City Council consideration with this Amendment Application. G. 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. The General Plan identifies on Table LU-A-1 that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The subject site is designated by the General Plan Land Use Element as FLEX-3. This land use designation by the General Plan encourages developments that provide context appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. The building has been designed to feature taller height and contemporary finishes to ensure it remains aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area, even as adjacent properties may redevelop with new industrial or mixed -use office, industrial, and/or research and development uses. The project has been designed to conform to all applicable standards of the M1 zoning district. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 of 6 H. The City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing on December 20, 2022. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated December 20, 2022, accompanying this matter. J. For the reasons contained herein, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2022-01 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 Amendment Application consists of amendments to the Zoning Map, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the analysis performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Environmental Review No. 2021-54). Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is exempt from further review. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet, and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants, are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR). A rezoning that is consistent with an adopted general plan falls within this exemption. (A) As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." The CEQA Guidelines further state that "[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards ... then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact." CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c). (B) The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if its development density is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan for which an EIR has been certified, and the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan. CEQA Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 of 6 Guidelines section 15183(i)(2). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions. (C) The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, and wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. The GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project and identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. (D) Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made: 1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX-3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Standard of M-1 (light Industrial zone). The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. 2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The subject property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects. In addition, as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project, could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 3. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build -out of the GPU. The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated. 4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the prepared Exemption Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 4 of 6 Checklist, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR. 5. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project's conditions of approval. (E) The Project therefore qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of the staff report accompanying this Ordinance. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project. Section 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and two appeal applications are subject to concurrent City Council consideration with this Amendment Application. Section 5. An amended Sectional District Map, showing the above described changes in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Amendment Application No. 2022-01. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 10, 2022, the Request for Council Action dated December 20, 2022, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 7. 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 this 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. Section 8. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 9. The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. ADOPTED this day of , 2022. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 5 of 6 Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney John M. Funk Chief Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , 2022 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 6 of 6 A 1 29-5-9 29-5-9 z � n M7 Mi M7 SDS O a O ,'♦ cJ M7 '• Qg HDTEL TERRACED0. 0 ` SD12 '• N Rti ,♦ M1 deeem c SD96 ; D63 M1 Fc, Fvr, � � ♦ SD12 M1 oy2 �I I I w E DYER RD u ♦ I gS FU��pN 00 M2 02 O � �pI M1 0� 1 �q/- oFF � � ♦ q� R I z D r N/A Pnnt D.. W1&2022 N/A �\� ZONING DISTRICTS Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST. R2 TWO- FAMILY RESIDENCE - B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE -OZ OVERLAYZONE Cl-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUMDIST. M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PRD DEVELOPMENT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER 0 OPENSPACE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT -HD2 HEIGHT DISTRICT II C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFICPLAN CR COMMERCIAL RES IDENTIAL R1 I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OZ1 I METRO EAST OVERLAY ZONE Sectional District Map: IRS-9 e - City of Santa Ana, California Exhibit: A RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NOS. 2022- 01 AND 2022-02 AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2022-14 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700, 1720, AND 1740 EAST GARRY AVENUE (APN 430-171-07) 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. Rob Mitchell ("Applicant"), representing Greenlaw Partners ("Property Owner") is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to allow a warehouse distribution facility at the property located at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue (APN 430-171-07). B. Concurrently, the Applicant is requesting approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2022-01 to change the zoning designation of the property from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1) in order to facilitate construction of the subject 91,500-square foot industrial warehouse and distribution building. C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") Section 41-472.5(i), a Conditional Use Permit is required for distribution facilities in the M1 zoning district within the City of Santa Ana. D. On August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 approving the establishment of a distribution facility at the subject property. Following information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to its regular meeting on September 26, 2022, after which the project was continued to its regular meeting on October 10, 2022. During said October 10, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01. E. On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association, filed respective appeal Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 12 applications, Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02, respectively, for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the SAMC. To support the City's recommendation to deny the appeal applications and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14, the City prepared a response to the comments contained within both appeals, attached to the Request for Council Action (RFCA) staff report, dated December 20, 2022, contained within the report and attached thereto as Exhibit 13. F. On December 20, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and on Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. G. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this CUP pursuant to SAMC Sections 41-638 and 41-645, have been established for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to allow a new warehousing and distribution facility within the M1 zoning district: 1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use will contribute to the general well-being of the community by providing a use that satisfies a growing demand for warehousing and distribution activities in the region, following the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The site plan and building have been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and to enhance the surrounding community with a building and site that will provide elevated architecture, landscaping, site, and right-of- way improvements. 2. That the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The proposed warehouse and distribution facility at this location would not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as the subject site is located within a professional office and light industrial area and not immediately adjacent to residential uses, schools, or parks. The nearest residential property is 0.43 miles (2,290 feet) due north from the subject site, across the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 12 Freeway. In addition, the project site is located within an area that is not near sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks. Moreover, access to the SR-55 Freeway is provided at the Dyer Road interchange, by way of Garry Avenue and Pullman Street, a driving distance of less than 0.50 miles. Moreover, the loading docks have been positioned at the south of the building in order to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto surrounding properties. Following public comments provided during the August 22, 2022 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant modified the site plan to include height -restriction bars that will prohibit truck traffic on the eastern portion of the site, thereby minimizing impacts to the adjacent properties. 3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. The proposed facility would be compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area. The proposed use would redevelop a site containing aging office buildings with a modern warehousing and distribution facility that has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding land uses and to conform to all applicable development standards of the M1 zoning district. The project site is in an area identified by the General Plan for industrial uses, pursuant to the Industrial/FLEX land use designation. Vehicles and trucks entering and departing from the project site will not travel through any neighborhoods containing sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, or parks. The new General Plan also designates surrounding properties Industrial/FLEX, and Garry Avenue and Pullman Street provide direct access to the SR-55 Freeway by way of the Dyer Road interchange, a driving distance of half a mile (0.50 miles). 4. That the proposed use shall comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. The use will comply with all regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. In addition to conforming to the development standards of the proposed M1 zoning district designation, the project and site plan have been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties. Primarily, the building's loading docks have been placed facing south toward the vacant Alton Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 12 Avenue right-of-way, to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto adjacent, developed properties. The site plan has been designed such that should the Alton Avenue bridge over the SR-55 Freeway be constructed, the project would continue to satisfy all applicable landscape and solid screen wall requirements. As the SR-55 Freeway widening project commences in earnest in late 2022, the project will continue to be able to provide a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the freeway, which will allow for mature trees, shrubs, and groundcover to be maintained long-term along the project site's western (freeway -adjacent) landscape strip. 5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City. The CUP would not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City. The CUP is consistent with various goals and policies of the General Plan. These include: Goal LU-1 (Growing responsibly), Policy LU-1.9 (Public facilities and infrastructure); Goal LU-2 (Land Use Needs), Policies LU- 2.1 (Employment opportunities), LU-2.6 (Encourage investment), LU-2.7 (Business incubator), and LU-2.8 (City image); Goal LU-3 (Compatibility of uses), Policies LU-3.4 (Compatible development), LU-3.7 (Attractive environment), and LU-3.8 (Sensitive receptors); and Goal LU-4 (Complete communities), Policies LU-4.2 (Public realm) and LU-4.3 (Sustainable land use strategies). These goals and policies encourage developments that are compatible with surrounding properties, contribute to the overall development of the community, provide employment opportunities, and provide responsible developments that enhance the community. As analyzed in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports prepared for the project, the proposed warehousing and distribution facility has been designed to satisfy all applicable General Plan goals and policies. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the analysis performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Environmental Review No. 2021-54). Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is exempt from further review. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet, and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants, are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR). A rezoning that is consistent with an adopted general plan falls within this exemption. Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 12 A. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." The CEQA Guidelines further state that "[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards .. . then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact." CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c). B. The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if its development density is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan for which an EIR has been certified, and the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan. CEQA Guidelines section 15183(i)(2). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions. C. The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, and wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. The GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project and identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. D. Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made: 1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX-3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Standard of M-1 (light Industrial zone). The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. 2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The subject Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 5 of 12 property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects. In addition, as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, Project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 3. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build -out of the GPU. The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated. 4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR. 5. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project's conditions of approval. E. The Project therefore qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of the staff report accompanying this Resolution. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project. Section 3. The City Council hereby upholds the determination of the Planning Commission and approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and denies Appeal Application Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 shall not become effective until the City Council adopts an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01, and said Amendment Application is in full force and effect. Section 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 shall not become effective until the City Council adopts an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01, changing the subject property's zoning designation from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1), and said Amendment Application is in full force and effect. Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 6 of 12 Section 5. 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, referendum, and other 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 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 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to the Request for City Council Action dated December 20, 2022, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this day of , 2022. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: John M. Funk Chief Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 7 of 12 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 8 of 12 I, Clerk of the Ana on CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- _to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa , 2022 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. The Applicant must comply with all conditions and requirements of the Development Review Committee for the Development Project (DP No. 2021-18). 2. The proposed facility shall be maintained as per approved plans and any existing landscaping shall be enhanced and well maintained. Any damage to existing structures, walls, parking areas, or landscaping must be repaired. 3. All activities shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the building. Outdoor activities shall be prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the City of Santa Ana or per Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-195.5. 4. Outdoor storage must be screened by solid walls, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-473. 5. The idling of trucks and passenger vehicles on and in the vicinity of the property, including on adjacent streets, is prohibited. 6. Contact information for an onsite manager or other individual responsible for the daily operations of the facility shall be posted in a prominent location at the front entry in the event that noise, traffic, and/or parking complaints need reporting. 7. Administrative offices shall not be subleased for uses not related to the warehousing and distribution facility. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for above -ground construction, the applicant shall record a parking and access easement allowing use of the eight (8) proposed parking spaces at the southeast portion of the project site by the adjacent property at 1800 East Garry Avenue (APN: 430-171-09). Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 10 of 12 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for above -ground construction, the applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property owner(s) at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue to modify or remove any easements as necessary to facilitate construction of the proposed development. Proof of modification or removal of required easements shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permit for above -ground construction. 10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install two height - restriction bars at the eastern driveway and at the southeast portion of the onsite parking lot to restrict truck traffic from the eastern portion of the site. The height - restriction bars shall be designed to allow passage of passenger vehicles but to prohibit large truck traffic from circulating on the eastern portion of the project site, as per Exhibit 5 of the October 10, 2022 Planning Commission and City Council staff reports. 11. The applicant and any subsequent association or management is responsible for installing and routinely maintaining high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 13 or better as indicated by the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2, in the intake of ventilation systems. Verification of installation shall be provided prior to project occupancy. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Property Maintenance Agreement shall 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, Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from 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); Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 11 of 12 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 Applicant 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, 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 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; and 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. Resolution No. 2022-XXX Page 12 of 12 7/22/22, 3:12 PM AA No. 2022-01 & CUP No. 2022-14, "Garry Avenue Business Park" 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue 1, L N11 Er. 71V - M1 Santa Ana Boundary 9❑ Zoning Zoned — General Agrieultural Comm unity Co mmercial Com m u oily Ca mmercial - Museum D istrin ■ General Commercial ■ Planned Shopping Center ■ Arterial Cam mercial ■ Commercial Residential ■ South Main Street Commercial Govemment Center District ■ Light Industrial ■ H_y Industrial ■ Open Space Land . Metm East overlay Zone ■ Prolessi-al Single -Family Residence ■ Two -Family Residenre ■ Multiple -Family Residence ■ Suburban Apartment ■ Residential -Estate ■ Specif[ Development Flo- 1 ■ Sp if Development Mo- 1L ■ Specif[ Development Flo_ 12 ■ Specific Development Flc- 13 ■ Specific Development Mo- 15 ■ Specific Development Ro- 16 ■ Specif[ Development Mo- 17 ■ Specific Development Mo- 18 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 19 ■ Specific Development Flc- 2 ■ Specific Development Mo- 20 ■ Specific Development Ro- 2L ■ Specif[ Development Mo- 25 ■ Specific Development Mo- 26 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 27 ■ Specific Development Flc- 3L ■ Specific Development Mo- 32 ■ Specific Development Ro- 34 ■ Specif[ Development Mo- 35 ■ Specific Development Mo- 36 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 38 ■ Specific Development Flc- 39 ■ Specific Development Mo-4 ■ Specific Development Ro-40 ■ Specif[ Development Mo-4L ■ Specific Development Mo-42 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 43 ■ Specific Development Flc-44 ■ Specific Development Mo-46 ■ Specific Development Ro-48 Specific Development Flo. 49 fir- -! Exhibit 3 - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View J111111111111i (d 7n77 ninital Man Prnrhirtc All rinhtc racarvari https://apps.spatialstream.com/landvision/production/CurrentBuild/Html/printpreview.html 1/1 7v Pat' Exhibit 4 — Site Photo n r MONUMENT SIGNAGE AND FREE STANDING SIGN UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT AND SHALL CONFORM WITH SAMC 41-86 10' LAN BUFFEI AREA TO BE I TAKEN BY OCtA & CALTRANS FOIE THE COSTA MESA SR44 FREEWAY WIDENING PROJECT N48041'50"W 80.00' Existing Sign to Remain N48041'50"W 270.02' ALTON PAR AY (FUTURE) -� E]————— — — —-- b—— 77 �"7!7 �177 -7V--7 (SEE CIVIL) FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION /- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KEYNOTES: PEDESTRIAN PAVING (SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE) CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVING (SEE CIVIL) — — O LANDSCAPE AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE) ® ACCESS DOOR OR EMERGENCY ACCESS DOOR STEEL TUBULAR FENCE (9' HEIGHT) AUTOMATIC ROLLING GATE (10'-HEIGHT) EXISTING CURB & I O TRASH ENCLOSURE (ADA COMPLIANT) TREES I I / I ® PROVIDE KNOX BOX (LOCATION PER FIRE DEPT.) I /I ()ADA RAMP (AS REQUIRED) NEW CUR I I /� I 10 ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PROPERTY LINE TRELLISED LUNCH AREA 12 NEW 9' HT. BIKE RACK TUBE STEEL I / I 13 ENRICHED CONCRETE PAVING (SEE LANDSCAPE) FENCE I 14 BARRIER GATE 1 (NO TRUCKS ALLOWED) \ I I 15 BARRIER GATE 2 (NO TRUCKS ALLOWED) I EXISTING PARKING I j (EXISTING BUILDING) I I I �I NEW 9' HT. I � j/// TUBE STEEL FENCE NEW CURB @ I / PROPERTY F- LU�' 'ISI GOf Uj fl- �Iw N44038'4711W 2 g EXISTING NEW CURB & CURB WORK cn ZD I_ co 2 °O 0 � Z W Q - W co U N Z Cl) W o LL. V �Z ZI X w l EXISTING CURB @ DRIVE WAY HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS ACCESS & PARKING EASEMENT (SEE CIVIL) NEW 9' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE MOVE 24" FROM CURB EXISTING CURB @ PROPERTY LINE 20' 0 Z\ 5' 10' 20' 30' 40' GA RR Y AVE. BUSINESS -PA RK SANTA ANA, CA CONCEPTUAL ENLARGED SITE PLAN Greenlaw I , rtTiers A2 Architecture. Design. Relationships. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 7141639-9860 aoarchitects.com Scale: 1" = 20'-0" Job No. 2021-124 Date: 09-26-2022 1 59 Not— Not — I v I I I I I I I I� I I GA RR Y A VE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA Greenlaw Partners CA 1 A2.2 5'-0" 16'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE KNOX BOX EXISTING CURB & TREES 16'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE 1 1 BARRIER GATE ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL ENLARGED SITE PLAN A201 (SE A!DArchitecture. Design. Relationships. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Scale: 1" = 20-0" 7141639-9860 Job No. 2021-124 aoarchitects.com Date:09-21-2022 16'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE KNOX BOX 30'-0" DRIVEWAY Ad� ' BARRIER GATE 1 ELEVATION fA2.2 21'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE KNOX BOX 2 BARRIER GATE 2 ELEVATION A22 GA RR Y AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CA 0 Greenlaw Partners 16'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE 40'-0" DRIVEWAY 21'-0" NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE CONCEPTUAL ENLARGED GATE ELEVATION A202 ti Architecture. Design. Relationships. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 714 1639-9860 aoarchitects.com Scale: 314" = V-0" Job No. 2021-124 Date: 09-26-2022 Q } z 0 z O O LL z_ O LL u) 0 z U W 00 00 7 W CO } Z W K W LU LU z Z z Z O U cw ZO G Q Q � J p ULL �Z D a 9 O CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN GA RR Y A VE. BUSINESS PARK sANTA ANA, CA 20' 0 2' 5' 10' 20' 30' 40' Z ~ y0 e a z CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN A!DArchitecture. Design. Relationships. Greenlaw Partners A3 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 714 1639-9860 aoarchitects.com Scale: 1" = 20'-0" Job No. 2021-124 Date: 09-08-2021 U CO m CO W co z W w W 0 W z z z �0 0 w-0 �Q QOf J O U'^W vJ J D a w w ry ry CITY OF SANTA ANA NOTES: • INSTALL 24" BOX STREET TREE AT 35' ON CENTER ON GARRY AVENUE, INCLUDING DEEP ROOT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PER CITY STANDARDS AND APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED. CONTACT THE TREE SECTION SUPERVISOR AT (714) 647-3337 FOR TREE SPECIES AND FOR NUMBER AND SIZE OF REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENTS. • THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW LANDSCAPING DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE PER THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKWAY GUIDELINE FOR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS IN THE EXISTING PARKWAY. • ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRE A SEPERATE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER METER & SERVICE OF PROPER SIZE TO SUPPLY THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. • THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REQUIRES THAT WATER CONSERVATION IRRIGATION SYSTEMS BE INSTALLED FOR ALL LANDSCAPING WHERE WATER IS REQUIRED. ALL SYSTEMS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE WATER RESOURCES MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE FOR APPROVED CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. GA RR Y AVE. BUSINESS PARK sANTA ANA, CA Greenlaw I Partners LEGEND OSIDEWALK © ACCESSIBLE RAMP © MODULAR WETLAND OPARKING TREE © SPECIMEN TREE AT SITE ENTRY ODROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING OTRASH ENCLOSURE : TRANSFORMER O6' HT METAL FENCE & GATE 0 DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL ELECTRIC EASEMENT ® NEW PROPERTY LINE ® EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN VINE PLANTING ® STREET TREE BUILDING ENTRY CALTRANS EASEMENT 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER SCREEN TREE ®1 BIKE PARKING m m E"ml 0 30 60 90 PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME $$ LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS OLEA EUROPEA'SWAN HILL' PLATANUS ACERFOLIA 'YARWOOD' O RHUSLANCEA BACKGROUND SHRUBS SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME DASYLIRION WHEELERI OLEA EUROPAEA'MONTRA' RHAMNUS C. 'MOUND SAN BRUNO' MIDGROUND SHRUBS COMMON NAME SIZE / HT. X SPRD. WATER DESCRIPTION FORM X CAL. (MIN.) USE BRISBANE BOX 24" BOX 8'H X 4'W M VERTICAL TREE STD. SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE 36" BOX 8'H X 5'W M ACCENT TREE MULTI X 4"C LONDON PLANE 24" BOX 8'H X 5'W L DECIDUOS CANOPY 24" BOX BROAD AFRICAN SUMAC 8'H X 5'W L EVERGREEN STD. SHADE CANOPY WUSER COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING DESCRIPTION DESERT SPOON 5 GAL. 48" O.C. L ACCENT BACKGROUND LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVE 5 GAL. 36" O.C. L SHRUB COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL. 60" O.C. L LARGE SHRUB SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DIANELLA TASMANICA VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 'VARI EGATA' HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA RHAPHIOLEPIS I. 'CLARA' WHITE INDIAN HAWTHORN MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY 'REGAL MIST' ACACIA COGNATA'COUSIN ITT' COUSIN ITT ACACIA FOREGROUND SHRUBS SYMBOL GROUNDCOVERS SYMBOL VINES BOTANICAL NAME AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' ALOE STRIATA CALLISTEM ON 'LITTLE JOHN' DIANELLA'CASSA BLUE' SESLERIA'GREENLEE' LOMONDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' COMMON NAME BLUE GLOW AGAVE CORAL ALOE DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH CASSA BLUE FLAX LILY GREENLEE MOOR GRASS DWARF MAT RUSH BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ALOE 'BLUE ELF' BLUE ELF ALOE LANTANA'NEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 'PINK' PROSTRATE MYOPORUM WUSER SIZE SPACING DESCRIPTION 5 GAL. 36" O.C. M STRAPPY ACCENT FLOWERING 5 GAL. 36" O.C. L ACCENT FLOWERING 5 GAL. 36" O.C. L SHRUB ORNAMENTAL 5 GAL. 36" O.C. M GRASS FEATHERY MID 5 GAL 30" O.C. L GROUND WUSER SIZE SPACING DESCRIPTION SUCCULENT 1 GAL. 30" O.C. L ACCENT SUCCULENT 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L ACCENT FLOWERING 5 GAL. 30" O.C. L SHRUB 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L STRAPPY ACCENT ORNAMENTAL 1 GAL. 30" O.C. M GRASS ORNAMENTAL 1 GAL 30" O.C. L GRASS WUSER SIZE SPACING DESCRIPTION SUCCULENT 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L GROUNDCOVER FLOWERING 1 GAL. 36" O.C. L GROUNDCOVER EVERGREEN 1 GAL. 36" O.C. L GROUNDCOVER SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WUSER DESCRIPTION CALLIANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALA PINK POWDER PUFF 5 GAL./ 15' O.C. M FLOWERING VINE ESPALIER v DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIA BLOOD -RED TRUMPET VINE 1 GAL./ M FLOWERING VINE STAKED WATER USE KEY: VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER USE STATED IS PER'WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS IV) FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 08-26-2021 8841 RESEARCH DR SUITE 200 . .IRVINE - CA 92618 949.387.1323 RIDGELA.COM Architecture. Design. jo!D Relationships. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 714 / 639-9860 aoarchitects.com Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Job No. 2021-124 Date: 04-09.2021 x x �q x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x /k X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J z x x x x O z O X X X X X X X X O w z X X X X X X u) Z X X X � x x x w w x x x x U X X X IX z w Q X X X O X X X X z a x x x l x w w z X X X O � x Ux z X�V w a w X X z z m X X O X X X F w X X m c=n X X X w m Q X X X z x x Ix W w X ❑ w x x x z Z x x O O w z O X X of X X aof U O xi U X � Q x x Qi x x o x x a X X X X X X X X X X X X X _x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x XG x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ENLARGEMENT A SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" HARDSCAPE P1 CONCRETE PAVING TYPE 1 COLOR: NATURAL GRAY FINISH: MEDIUM BROOM JOINTS: TOOLED P2 CONCRETE PAVING TYPE 2 COLOR: DARK GRAY - DAVIS COLORS FINISH: TOP CAST 05 JOINTS: SAWCUT GARRY AVENUE /x x x x xbx x x x x x x x x x� x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ----------------- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X k X X X X X X X X X X PROPOSED BUILDING Mx x xl x xl x x xI X X XI X X XI Q X X XI X X X XI X O X X XI X x x x X X X X X XI X X X XI X X X XI i x x xI x I x x xL X X X X X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X' X X X X X X I hC X X x X X X X X X X X X X bC X X /` 7C O X� X X X X' X X X X X X xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x A x x x x x x x x x x x xI x X x x x x x x x x x x : x x X X X X X I X X X X X X x x x x x x x x < x x xI x x x x x x X X X X X X X x X x x x x x x x x r� -. r � r r r : ♦ � r ♦ r ► • r ♦ ♦ \ \ ` \ 4 \ • l ► 4 i \ i , i 4 ► i 1 i t ..i _. ♦ a \ 4 \ 4 i i ` i i i ` �{ 4 l l k � 4 l 4 � � _ - 4 i 4 � ` 4 -• t 4 4� ` 4 4 4 ` ` 4IL` 4 4 \ 4 L 4 L \. 4 4 t 4` 4 4 IL 4 4 4 46 k ■ • E P3 Opp PRE -CAST DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS p COLOR: CHARCOAL FINISH: STANDARD FINISH ENLARGEMENT B SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Al P4 Opp STAMPED CONCRETE n COLOR: CHARCOAL FINISH: STANDARD FINISH GARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK sANTA ANA, CA (�reenlaw I ,_rtners SITE FURNISHINGS S1 BIKE RACK MODEL: EMERSON BIKE RACK MFG: LANDSCAPE FORMS COLOR / FINISH: STEEL/POWDER COAT LEGEND OSIDEWALK -P1 © BUILDING ENTRY - P2 © DETECTABLE WARNING PAVER - P3 OACCESSIBLE RAMP © MODULAR WETLAND OPARKING TREE OSPECIMEN TREE AT SITE ENTRY : DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING OELECTRIC EASEMENT NEW PROPERTY LINE ENHANCED DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ® TRASH ENCLOSURE GARRY AVENUE ®EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA WITH TABLES AND SEATING, WASTE RECEPTACLES AND SHADE STRUCTURE (S2,S3) 0 STREET TREE ® PARKWAY - DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING BIKE RACK - S1 SCREEN TREE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X > X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX XXXXX X w Xx xXxxxx XXXXX XXXXX xxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X- X X X X X X X r_ X X_ _X _ X_ X _X _ X_ X X X X X x x x x x - - - �1 x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X xx x x;VrX x x x x x x x x Ll 3 xxxxxxx x x x x x x x 11 IN PROPOSED BUILDING ENLARGEMENT C SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NUAiliVa MIRK S2 PICNIC TABLE & SEATS MODEL: CAROUSEL DINING BACKED (4 SEATS & 3 SEATS) MFG: LANDSCAPE FORMS COLOR / FINISH: STEEL / POWDER COAT PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS 08-26-2021 L201 8841 RESEARCH 0R SUITE 200 . .IRVINE • CA 9261B 949.387.1323 RIOGELA.COM TRASH RECEPTACLE S3 OO MODEL: CHASE PARK MFG: LANDSCAPE FORMS COLOR / FINISH: CAST ALUMINUM A!DArchitecture. Design. Relationships. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 714 / 639-9860 aoarchitects.com Scale:1" = 30'-0" Job No. 2021-124 Date: 04-09.2021 - I 11 � ... .,;.:, . , �. . ,7. . . . ..... .� m _ , , ", , " I Y-1 .;"Ij-- * 'P ' ' -41%!q 1 - I �l %, s 1 rf 3 - t: -v I is R 'S ,f 4r �,y e .' �, F 1�,' �� !^. _ a. -r. .! rh/�► -- = ti. ;y - _ - ;� c.'� �,p'a+.; •-�.. .- -. _ A i ,�� A -. y r 1 1 r 1.6 f;a' ti- a . . `i), _, + ,C _ s` .. yo- _ „ ^ - ; ..,aria. .._ &. V`.; 4 - _ i9 .; 4-. ,.i. Y.7 - f+' , .l r .1° {�. i q^._';� . F V '� ,i ''� - I ,. ti+ C. v✓...-•`cr:-- ±Y .ti 't�:t,.'-i- *, _- _ - rS "�-"" µ4 .• "'Y`� •._}.[. •.r.L .3"- ry,Fa;:. r _ _ I .pr - a A '• Y.fi- .,e.t. �U - - f •t. �,a�� R # - r T`•r1.Z f - _ '��, r ;�: _ i + S - 11A,T _ l :•a ' - _ 4 x: t r i e^^ . .�! i �y. F T': v - Y 'r 5C �,J .f Sp��I, .. . Y �-i , _.'''. 'r - _ - ti _ _ % - r ...ei s " r. + { _ a is' +�•4+ i+� _ r - t •• i .' i `r• i t.. { i . , .a4 r Y .. ' x..a _ - ft 3�, ,i � 1 r / c4 i, ' - - - - _`. �y �� s J� R - ,L .-J�lxyr��T I �` r_ -�, } { ..r-d •' j5- y�.,�AX .� lam` r ,- 't •� f f t ti ���i{A �i' � _ - I l a r x �. _ 'r ;� h a �� ♦ Jr 5 R d i`='•f 1� 11.4. 7 bt .py �Y Y _ l .. _ i _ _` 5 ..a t9 • a.. i -M � s•� x -�' r. '� w' • le .,'' ,1Y4 ,•J .1 _ s iC: r 1 1: a \\ ,J. I� 4 L •lam +- "# t•''.31� '1 f , . ',. ti ., ,Ir_ !i4 .,r MPP7 r . :1 . - �._ . - - _ �`' _ y q.x 4 F ti ,,, AJ W:x� 1 r �i� - 1 . .r - - I J , . . i�'IQ r` - ! C _r.. ■ �4 r av . -_ _ Oak, � TI a d 1.r •LL _ - - 1 •l' t l r 1 ,. t' n tt-• Y r.' � va . - i� s ti 6 V', ., 4 + :i � r r y%A' - i . -0,1 - i � A , ,�- " j / - AFAW•r� 1. �'•�. k. r•. • V Y � ' A .+�. - ?4' �`< i .1 - L " � 4 I I f • I .r! i �.�'Y!. L� . 0' 1 • - - �c .:�'- 4 _ \ '.% r f . .. . . - _ � .J�- - •�f � \ti tf ,r' ,',, ��^f�.\ �.,. '-I v I �l�fi i - = ..ram. r - ,v _ 'al r {' ^a t�* } _}tk t_ 4�i: _ = err► -Am - - . �j I r: i -.� � _ � � �q - .ir � - � ��L .. � ' - . i & :. ' a � �' r #. r. � _+ � � ''. �� - , ° - - . - _ - +- - <.. �Qj = v r�I F fy.�� _ ve - _ . _ - = x ' , ' ■ ■�k.Li .. Wi. [III !r IFS F I Y r ! - -■ '}. _. _ _ i[ �. - .I -- ter .. - if' 'i ah i}. i } } 1'�'. �. ,_{ ,- 1 _ _ - _ -,3_ - - - - _y - .. _ J 1 y -- _ . ;�.. "L PAP .� - 'i TR .. ;,;%. Jai .� _. IN ED I 0 NO . 'S I . . . % . . t�!L_ - W 3,' ii 1, •! rr � .i r y - .� r 1 r � ltr .' y - T i ;, '� i - . ti ��FF %j {{{ ! ,. a r. ' 4 f 1 .r. ►-. , f1. . \ / -r I J ti + J r fir `, �� i °r `ice. I - �- i .` r - ',, ��. P - _ _ , •+ 'r ` � .c ,j - 4 fir . r - .+4 � l ,l r 1 a Iti� '`�,I 1 +v g J t, r� ft t; 5 _ try `► '� -. -.. - ti\-- _ .Ab ,rs " W. �j �9 r:,i c r01 c a;1;'00 4` . �33. + �y a4. is . :k� q .•.. �s.-iv, rra',-dri .'s`�� •� w- r �.4..Jy^ ;{4 . p� �. I ;. ati Jr' ,' ' f r a ' .1 : 5 + T w + i L4 t rE _ I' 1...%�,., f: . ". f k .. . L L. . 71, , - '� [[r - - - , ,• . . .,, F t p •' '_ . Ir 1. r ti" - ti - Z2 .. V -, .tL .' 1 i `� 1 5..' x t 11 f ri `s A T ' ,1 R �i 11 ��Allll"_"leA. f - V c�5'_ : i '� ' i I .i ss .11 jj'' ■ ` 4 ..�-,Jxfj'' - r 1 'ii, - * i� , I .1. , r x r.-'INWs� '+ s w t. t / Fr �l $,A,- v' �+'{ �. •te r - - k _ c ��w !� w ' ass 4�' + r �:F" (/ i i � f♦ 1 Q ••-• y •+ f T r• v � %_�l . ''' .. - i 17 r_� - l . � r. �, L • r I •" q A �. y fi' - I + 1 r r .•Cr f, ,r r � r _ r } } . r , "! 1l . 1 1 r• r - F.. i' + 11 r' I � r i w� 1 I I 'Y' ti f k t t1 ' )" ■ 0 . /_. . / 1 J� r V 'r /, .P. 4.4 I - . 4 r Y ri J sk '- • w. %, . ' 1 • + '0 - t , i .. k 41 * . r4� 66 F !I + a ) �I.A i - r• � - - - . :I - --�- : . - I 1. - - . .. A1, � /- ". I. I ': : _. _� . ..'.�. , 'L . .. . . .�l.k .. . -'N. a11 p)�.o . -.: . a, b .. :.� 9 ;.tier. . . .-- . .. .. J_I ? . k. �. ,.; . :� �: , r . . - 1:_:�._ . 4", . . .� .1 .i I . - - . 1. . . I-.. . l4k _�. - . : .- � - %, ... �'l A % I . : .1 ,� . . "IL -E(+'l. 1 .`h ..- I. L'� . i L�:;,_---� � !4 _�'., �T.. . �J.-".I -'...qL..,..'...., .I._ ,., .�.,�..�,�..,,, Fes, v 31 ■7 hn ; -'d R•'F. N p �. _ ,,. jw� i-, '., i,;� •.(l' / 4,u1, Wy { ;y st .y . .,gyp' .'t ^�n�. ..�I -�Y'T._ "•L �. +L; L. - �. r y. . �: . a . L''. i n `;r.. I ,E _ '1 "i r 1 . - - r .. � _ il y , i _ �r y g P �. �_ �7 - yy - d' r?_)_.�.: -may y `I,�Y..:, •�...... 7 -" {�i'a I .� ` .. _ . ='? Y rt:- . , ,sue'` P y `yy-- j Ii er. - ' ✓ ^Y:. 4 -�"- Rye'' FI �* ,s _ .. �.'L .""NIA..4 'fib _ fi 1. r - 5`pp,s r �,•, - ^''. .-•, 5.-r�I i, t yam. , + ` '. . , ��� �_ �- - Fr n y' ` •� c _ . .... ate•.' _ �...`Y n +y'-- _ + ." ♦ it F. ,-I .. 1 'l'. .. I - "a•+`' a ?; 'tom'" 't`r" `i ."a .. . _ i�' , ,ft if , 112 S �sF 'tl [l IIS . ~' . J. r IJr % �y �"' �,r � y� ' +y�-aT.k+� ` - a. h ,:.1 - r . 7.T _ %-' ' _4.tN - �' . 7 -, �' . y . __ -_ '- a ;� `T4 ! r 1' - - s _ _- L, a , ' 3'r. - ti t $s`C;r` ;\ r. h f. �! .ti. i �: 4.• ,ram, -- ` + ,::, - .. I i \ i1. y'� l .:u . J +I' �f k /. Y. : . t . ilillillllM .: �._. ..: : ,�, I 1� - r`• _ , 7 k*. 1' + + i G r+ I r J. �. ma .x l sa:.1.i.s.`. ;Sv.. .t� c. _: s 'rL *` k -' ••7 1 1Z1a�Yu t'�\. n xa c ..•w . r ..� w - J' _:� .•f f� *I�� �4n' _ r .� a l _ .� _lw yam. _ jj_ ` .ar +i, --rr 7 r - _ - - }.L. - `4 �', •�- il' rI r t .t. - .. -' '.w-yr.7' - ._A' '�•x- ; _ f •l - 1 .ter ems. C _ s., _ _ '!. 1 T�-'r� i. 5 A;.rF. ^�1,+ ''''rs 'Ff �'`if ;�.r+ - _ r • p: - .'Y444 _ 'E is ,' - F r •�!lA-" 'i :d+: i P 1`' i I1 i 1 xY y 4 tir-'Ii ■� r. s. r( sf P' A . I - �•�.. '� �ti - a• i _ Y' + r ' � 'R Y 1' i' a. A 3 IL ,! _ , . '"Z" y�� Yr r r _ a. ''�sr. p ` - .. 4 4 i' ' x , ra70. 1 r s s - _ .•S . r_ . a.• .r, .1 w .•� J'y w - a` r - t 'v - .+ ' n� r _ _ , _ \ �,,{ 4- aR-" ry + .e 77' 1 / , 'ti Y f �J x. - . , '1 f �' - _ - '°' r r _ . IV �' .. .'�'' c. - 1' ,ic - .i .tf t C r. ' _ 1 'S . r'• ` rr' + i f. ".t]. -5' nt �' \S r 4. Nk �� .� a R - 1 Y t1 _ W .,'' ...ilpr' ,' .. - ,k' y-i : 3 'd' .,1.3 `17',' _ Y A, w ry_•,+y - - w .'1� r 1 - N+l 'J - y �a I .I}`� - L rr' i o- i a- a f'. 41 : r( 3 .J - moo." • s ' 4 • ' «• _ s. to F 1 1 c . 7 t. xr• �c �' _ h. ay. _ E , -OF -� :. I. 1 %r., a _ . . L4- I - �1 V - !i'.' , . t' _ -iy _ . . 4 _ - `;,. , v ,w - 1 i+ -., . .'� . it _ - Y p.._ .- � 2- '_' - - . '`S - - _ II+ . a . .. \ �f..-7,' G' -ire - ,-+. �4 - - '� yy -a , .Z+ ' -!'C'_ •-I1 . - -A - r •" A. .. . •yam . -� - '.�,.,' .'i Skti.- x�' .. --.%' L� 4 - 1 + - LI 1 - - r� . _ : • .. .-x �'r f fi Y ".- +. e� y�a� _ y� t S '- �;„ 3. R l_ .' �� y5n ix';�- y>. ��,� 1.j 7�1'� f .t - _ - ti �a �'►- - _ - '.,11 'm .'' i - t r , •y, r''-`+- r- ram` .: ~W - ',, _. .'r Q ! I' .• _ v. -r . ,r•.S '.is ►S'. •. -��'t�F 1+1 . . y _ r- - . _:� a- wl I . J.., S- I tea _ 1 r' ca ..l_ r .} - _ ti Jr :. a. �_ • � 1n• .1 � +�^f - r _ \ t - 1. i4 h r 8r M1- `' r ` Y ' . ..di Z _" 4 _T ,�` )I r-r �4 "�'I '1�- 4 ^ .t. .✓sr+-= -+' , .� _�i J`'.�,r-. ? AV . , _ ,1 _.'e., v - t a, i Y - � � i"- �r ✓ 'A +'.: r - - - - CIA..{1� /Y y r -tl 1t ■ -'\ •' - p, :; ; . ,y' b- .M^ �{+ _ / . • F- ' -.f.�J ... .�_ •.c• .y' r - -w• r 1 .ir` - - t S•e '. - �• ,f• �V _ 1 ••l r ' I► �` ! i __ _'�_ L: '-'9O -_. j - , tk , ' : _ / 1 �4 t _ - _ !�:.+ .'.� :�• • �y� "r+ .,~ •e.... t^ , - - . 1R r, ,..ra,r ..; kk' II ' .'! J � �- .4' 's� -,_ _ x ` ' a syY 7 '�y' .tir - "s _ . _' , �'- � :�-['_`"'�k"a f "•i i7i_ '�, ,.r -d. i :" I ,:4'� •�, ' -. •`"1,6 - ' - - ? •sslr . �~ .a �• �" F� _ . . l i' 1'r - ._ �. S� + .',t -F • !Sala-' '•. ` �t ,RIF, = mmml� Pffllff _MA FARMAIWI lffAII alm "A RAVI RA M 1TNM! Arcnitecture r 3 Design. Relatienshin &TalkA1vIKrJV� `iaiffiTA MEDIUM PERFORMANCE GLASS 2" WIDE REVEAL SIGNAGE UNDER SEPERATE PERMIT AND SHALL CONFIRM METAL WITH SAMO SECTION AWNING 141-863(d) " WIOE REVEAL 2" WIDE REVEAL NORTH TH ( ARRY AVE. STREET ELEVATION) PAINTED GONG, GLR ANODIZED " WIDE REVEAL 2" WIDE REVEAL RODFLINE METAL DOOR PANEL ALUM SYSTEM GLR ANODIZED ALUM SYSTEM METAL CANOPY GA RR Y A VE. BUSINESS PARK sANTA ANA, CA Greenlaw I Partners PAINTED GONG. PANEL PAINTED OONO_ PANEL WEST T {NE P F T 55 FRWY ELEVATION) CLR ANODIZED SCREEN WALL ROOFLINE " WIDE REVEAL METAL DOOR ALUM SYSTEM (TYPICAL) METAL DOOR 2" WOE REVEAL MEDIUM PERFORMANCE GLASS 10 30 I EAST ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL COLOR ELEVATIONS Architecture. A!D Design. Relationships. 144 Forth Orange tree( Orange, California 92866 Scale: IIIV' =1'-0" 71418 9-9860 Job No, 2021.124 aoarchitects.corn Date:09-08-2021 J z 0 z a z 0 4 fay Q CONCEPTUAL RENDERED IE1 Design. ArcB USINESS PA RK SANTA . GA RR Y A VE. CAJ'o Relationships. 144 Forth Orange Stree( A8 Orange, California 0 888 Scale: N.T.S. 71418 0-9860 Job No. 2021.124 Greenlaw Partners aoarchitects.corn Date:09-08-2021 - AL wm�lklrmilk WAVAiliFimmof zak� �WAWAMIA WA - ■. mmA6AAII SIGNAGE k � #Ana d"amm it lid 60 iwpm A A Ok ch " 1 n t A T 1 0 n r-Hr A0 1700 E Garry Avenue Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Community Plan Exemption Checklist Lead Agency: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Project Applicant: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 CEQA Consultant: ENVIRONMENT I PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 July 2022 This page left intentionally blank. City of Santa Ana Contents Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 1 OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183............................................................................................1 2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE................................................................................................................................1 3 APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ............................................................1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................................................................................3 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION.....................................................................................................................................3 2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE................................................................................................................................3 2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE.......................................4 2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS...............................4 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................13 3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING......................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING....................................................................................................................... 14 3.5 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1 51 83 ....... 15 3.6 LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS) ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS.......... 15 3.7 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS........................................................................................................................... 15 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST......................................................................................................25 4.1 CHECKLIST FORM........................................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................................................ 26 4.3 DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).................................................................... 26 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................28 5.1 AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................................................28 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 32 5.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................. 35 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................................... 43 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 46 5.6 ENERGY.........................................................................................................................................................52 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................... 54 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................................................................... 59 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................................................................. 62 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................... 67 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................................................................... 72 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................. 74 5.13 NOISE.............................................................................................................................................................76 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................................................. 83 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................................... 85 5.16 RECREATION.................................................................................................................................................88 5.17 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................................................90 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................. 94 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS............................................................................................................. 97 5.20 WILDFIRES...................................................................................................................................................101 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS.........................................................................103 7 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................104 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Tables TABLE 1 : SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARD..............................................................................4 TABLE AES-1 : PROJECT CONSISTENCT WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS................................................................................................29 TABLE AQ-1 : SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS......................................................................................................37 TABLE AQ-2: MAXIMUM PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS................................................................................................................3737 TABLE AQ-3: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................38 TABLE AQ-4: PROJECT LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION..................................................................................39 TABLE AQ-5: PROJECT LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS..................................................................................3939 TABLE GHG-1 : CONSTRUCTION RELATED GHG EMISSIONS................................................................................................................... 60 TABLE GHG-2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS..........................................................................................................................60 TABLE N-1 : PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN UPDAT CITY OF SANTA ANA NOISE ELEMENT STANDARDS ...........................77 TABLE N-2: CITY OF SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS.............................................................................77 TABLEN-3: NOISE MEASUREMENTS..........................................................................................................................................................78 TABLE N-4: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS...............................................................................................................................78 TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION............................................................................................................................... 80 TABLE T-1 . PROJECT TRIP GENERATION....................................................................................................................................................91 Figures FIGURE1 : REGIONAL LOCATION..................................................................................................................................................................5 FIGURE2: LOCAL VICINITY...........................................................................................................................................................................7 FIGURE3: AERIAL VIEW...............................................................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 4: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION................................................................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 5: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE6: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS............................................................................................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 7: CONCEPTUAL RENDERING.........................................................................................................................................................21 FIGURE 8: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN............................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix Appendix A Air Quality Assessment Appendix B Biological Assessment Appendix C Historical Resource Assessment Appendix D Archaeological Resources Assessment Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Appendix G Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix I Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study Appendix J Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix K Acoustical Assessment Appendix L Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum City of Santa Ana INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project This exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and construction of a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants (proposed Project) are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15183 (Exemption Checklist). As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and PRC Section 21083.3(b)). The State CEQA Guidelines further state that "[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards [... ] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c))." 1.2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The City of Santa Ana (City) General Plan Update (GPU) was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. The GPU provides long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045, and provides a comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation and public safety policies for the entire City. The updated General Plan Land Use Element guides growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, use and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. Any action, program, or project is considered consistent with the GPU if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the GPU or not obstruct their attainment. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the certified GPU EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions. 1.3 APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d), the exemption applies to projects which meet the following conditions: Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 1. The project is consistent with: a. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or c. A general plan of a local agency, and 2. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. Furthermore, the exemption applies when all feasible mitigation measures identified in the applicable general plan are implemented by the public agency with jurisdiction to require such mitigation measures (State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 83(e)). The GPU EIR was certified in 2022, which analyzed the impacts of the City's GPU, which was adopted. As discussed in this exemption checklist, the Project is consistent with the development standards analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site is located within the GPU 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area. The General Plan (Land Use Element Page 54) describes that this focus area will transition from a portion of the city that is almost exclusively focused on professional office jobs to one that supports a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed -use development. The Project site has a GPU designation of FLEX-3 that allows a FAR of 3.0 and building heights up to 10- stories. The FLEX-3 designation allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office -industrial flex spaces, small- scale clean manufacturing, research, and development. The GPU identifies (on Table LU-A-1) that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1 (Light Industrial). The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The M1 zone provides requirements for minimum lot sizes or 12,000 square feet with 100 feet of street frontage, building height (a maximum of 35 feet), setback requirements from public streets, landscaping requirements. The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. As such, the GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. The Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made: 1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX-3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Standard of M-1 (light Industrial zone). The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. 2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The subject property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects. 2 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project In addition, as explained further in the Exemption Checklist below, Project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 3. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build -out of the GPU. The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained further in the Exemption Checklist below, no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated. A. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR. 5. The Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project's conditions of approval. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Project is located at 1700 - 1740 East Garry Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number 430-171- 07), within the southeastern portion of the City of Santa Ana. The City of Irvine boundaries are located to the south of the site, across the right-of-way for Alton Avenue. The site is located within the Tustin USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle map. The location of the Project site is shown on Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Local Vicinity. Regional access to the Project site is provided State Route 55 (SR-55) and the Dyer Road interchange. Local access is provided by Dyer Road to Pullman Street, which turns into Garry Avenue. Alternatively, local access to the site is provided by Red Hill Avenue to Alton Parkway and Daimler Street to Garry Avenue; or Red Hill Avenue to Deere Avenue to either Daimler or Pullman Streets to Garry Avenue. 2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE The Project site consists of one 5.2-gross-acre parcel (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The Project site is currently developed with three office buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and were constructed between 1972 and 1974. The existing office structures are one-story cement and stucco buildings with windows that are surrounded by parking. The buildings currently accommodate multiple tenants each. Vehicular access to the Project site is provided from a driveway at Garry Avenue. See Figure 3, Aerial View. The Project site has an elevation of approximately 47 feet above mean sea level with a decreasing topographic gradient to the east-northeast. 3 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE The City's GPU designates the land use of the Project site as FLEX-3 that allows a FAR of 3.0 and building heights up to 10-stories. The FLEX-3 designation allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office - industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research, and development. The GPU identifies (on Table LU-A-1) that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1 (Light Industrial). The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The M1 zone provides requirements for minimum lot sizes or 12,000 square feet with 100 feet of street frontage, building height (a maximum of 35 feet), setback requirements from public streets, landscaping requirements. The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. 2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site is located within a developed area. The surrounding land uses, and their respective designations and zoning or interim development standard (until the zoning is updated to be consistent with the recently adopted General Plan land uses) are listed on Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning / Interim Development Standard Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning / Interim Development Standard North SR-55 and Commercial Offices FLEX-3 M-1 — Light Industrial West SR-55 followed by Commercial FLEX-3 M-1 — Light Industrial and Industrial uses Vacant Parcel and FLEX-3 — Industrial/Flex & M-1 — Light Industrial & 5.1 — Irvine Business South Commercial/Industrial Urban and Industrial Complex (IBC) Multi -Use (City of Irvine) (City of Irvine) East Commercial, Industrial, and FLEX-3 — Industrial/Flex M-1 — Light Industrial Offices 4 City of Santa Ana Figure 1: Regional Location Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana Figure 2: Local Vicinity Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana Figure 3: Aerial View Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project iC City of Santa Ana Figure 4: General Plan Designation Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 12 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Overview The Project includes demolition of the three existing office buildings, which are located at 1700 East Garry Avenue, 1720 East Garry Avenue, and 1740 East Garry Avenue, totaling 103,031 square feet and construction of a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants. One side of the building would have 42,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors. The site plan is illustrated on Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan. Architectural Design The building incorporates a modern warehouse architectural design. The building exterior would be constructed with tilt -up concrete wall panels consisting of a primarily off-white color palette, with accented wall panels of light and dark grays and green. The building would be approximately 43 feet 6 inches tall with varying roof lines to break up the perception of massing. Windows would be fitted with tinted light blue glass. Building entrances would include metal canopies on the exterior of the building. The elevations and conceptual rendering of the building are illustrated on Figure 7, Proposed Elevations, and Figure 8, Conceptual Rendering. Landscaping and Fencing Landscaping is proposed along the entire site perimeter, adjacent to the proposed building, and throughout the parking areas. Along the Garry Avenue frontage, layered landscaping consisting of 24 and 36-inch box street trees, shrubs and assorted ground cover is proposed. The landscaping palate includes assorted drought tolerant ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover ranging from moderate to low water needs. Tree species include London Plane Tree, Swan Hill Fruitless Olive, Brisbane Box, and African Sumac and would be consistent with the Municipal Code 33-1 85, Street Tree Species to Be Planted, requirements. The landscape plan is illustrated on Figure 9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. A 10-foot-high decorative screen wall is proposed along the southwest property line. A 9-foot-high tube steel screen fence is proposed along the southeast property line, and a 10-foot-high landscape buffer is proposed along the northwest property line adjacent to the SR-55. Lighting The Project would include new exterior lighting for security, to accent the landscaping, and to light signage, walkways, and parking areas that would be consistent with Municipal Code Sections 41 -61 1.1 and 41- 1 304. Light pole fixtures are proposed in parking areas and wall -mounted light fixtures are proposed on the exterior of the building, and landscape accent lighting is proposed at the Project driveways. The new lighting would be focused on the site, shielded away from offsite areas. Access and Circulation Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from two driveways from Garry Avenue near the northeast and southwest boundaries of the Project site. Onsite circulation includes a 30-foot-wide half -loop drive aisle that goes around the building, connecting to both proposed driveways. This drive aisle would provide vehicular access to the parking areas and loading docks in the rear of the building and would serve as the onsite fire lane where parking would be prohibited. Access to the loading dock area would be restricted via swinging tube steel gates. A sidewalk would be installed along the Garry Avenue site frontage and accessible pedestrian paths of travel to the two building entrances from the sidewalk would be provided near the proposed driveways. 13 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Parking and Loading Docks Truck loading docks would be located along the south side of the building. The building would include 10 loading dock doors, five loading docks for each tenant. The Project would also 139 standard car parking stalls with 4 accessible, and 2 van accessible spaces that would be located on the northwest and southeast sides of the proposed building. Stalls near the two building entrances would be reserved for clean air vehicles and electrical vehicles in conformance with requirements set forth in CALGreen Building Code Section 5.106.5. Infrastructure Connections Water and Sewer. The Project would install new water and sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8- inch water main and 9-inch sewer main in Garry Avenue. In addition, an 8-inch fire water line is proposed underneath the entire length of the onsite drive aisle that would connect the existing 8-inch water main in Garry Avenue. Drainage. The Project would install a new onsite drainage system that would connect to the existing 18-inch drain in Daimler Street. The onsite drainage would convey runoff to biofiltration basins that would treat flows prior to discharge. Off -Site Improvements The Project would remove the existing curb cut for the existing driveway and include two new curb cuts for the two proposed driveways within the Gary Avenue right-of-way. The Project also includes the installation of a new sidewalk along within the Gary Avenue right-of-way along the site frontage. 3.2 General Plan and Zoning As discussed above, the GPU's land use designation of the Project site is FLEX-3 with an Interim Development Standard of M-1. The existing land use designation and Interim Development Standard allow for offices, light industrial, and other warehouse uses such as manufacturing, distribution, and assembly. As is further analyzed in this Community Plan Exemption Checklist, the Project is consistent with the existing land use designation and Interim Development Standard, and no changes to these designations are required or proposed. 3.3 Operational Characteristics For purposes of this evaluation, the proposed building is assumed to be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with exterior loading dock area and parking areas illuminated at night. The building is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the building, except for traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of trucks at designated dock doors. 3.4 Construction and Phasing Construction activities include demolition and removal of the existing structures, landscaping, and pavement; site preparation; excavation and grading; building construction; paving; and architectural coating. Over - excavation and re -compaction of the site soils would extend at least 7.5 and 3 feet below finished or existing grade (whichever is deeper) within building and pavement/flatwork areas, respectively. Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 12 months, with the entire Project constructed in one phase. Project construction would occur within the hours allowed by the City's Noise Ordinance, which limits construction noise to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday (City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 1 8-314(e). 14 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 3.5 Prior Environmental Document(s) for Analyzing State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 • City of Santa Ana GPU Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, certified April 19, 2022. State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087. 3.6 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) • City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701; and accessible online at the City's website: https://www.santa-ana.org/genera1-plan- environmental-documents/ 3.7 Discretionary Approvals In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the Project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and Project approval. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed Project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are state agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed Project. There are no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies, or any other public agencies, whose approval is required for approving this Project. The following discretionary actions are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the Project: City of Santa Ana • Amendment Application (zone change) to update the site's zoning designation to change from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M-1) to be consistent with the FLEX-3 General Plan land use designation and the M-1 interim development standard for FLEX-3, and • Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to allow a freight, bus, and truck terminal for distribution activities, as defined by Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-60 and permitted by SAMC Section 41- 472.5(i). 15 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 16 City of Santa Ana Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 17 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 18 City of Santa Ana Figure 6: Proposed Elevations Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 19 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 20 City of Santa Ana Figure 7: Conceptual Rendering Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 21 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 22 City of Santa Ana Figure 8: Conceptual Landscape Plan Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 23 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 24 City of Santa Ana 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4.1 CHECKLIST FORM Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Title: Garry Avenue Business Park Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Contact Person and Phone Number: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP. Principal Planner, 714-647-5882 Project Location: 1700 - 1740 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca 92705 (APN: 430-171 -07) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Greenlaw Management Inc., 18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 General Plan Designation: FLEX-3 Zoning/ Interim Development Standard: Light Industrial (M-1) Project Description: Redevelopment of a 5.2-acre parcel currently developed with three commercial industrial buildings that total 103,031 square feet with a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants. One side would consist of a 42,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors. See Section 3, above, for additional details about the proposed Project. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is located within a developed area, including the SR-55 along the northwest side of the site, and commercial, light industrial, and office/business park uses, and roadways surrounding the other sides of the site. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Not Applicable. 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.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on "tribal cultural resources" with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project's potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum, such as this Community Plan Exemption Checklist (State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 83). As such, AB 52 consultation is not required for this Project. 25 City of Santa Ana 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project WOULD NOT result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required, and a Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed indicating that the project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. ❑ I find that the proposed Project would result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Signature Printed Name Date Title 26 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Community Plan Exemption Checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the Project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. • Items checked "Peculiar Impact that is not Substantially Mitigated" indicates that the Project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the project or the project site and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 83(b)(1 )(f)) • Items checked "Impact not Analyzed as Significant Effect in GPU EIR" indicates that the project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR. Such a project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2),(c),(f)) • Items checked "Potentially Significant Offsite or Cumulative Impact Not Discussed in GPU EIR" indicates the project could result in a significant offsite or cumulative impact that was not discussed in the GPU EIR. Such an offsite or cumulative project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 83(b)(3),(c),(f)) • Items checked "Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information" indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that a project impact is more severe than discussed in the GPU EIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4),(c),(f)). • Items checked "No New Impact" indicates that potential impacts from the project have been adequately analyzed in the GPU EIR. A project does not qualify for a Community Plan Exemption if it is determined that it would result in one or more of the following: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the GPU EIR, 2) a significant impact was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR, 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GPU EIR, or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the GPU EIR was certified. However, if a project having any of the foregoing impacts can be substantially mitigated through the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. Uniformly applied development policies or standards that are applicable to the proposed project are included within this analysis. A summary of the City's analysis of each potential environmental effect is provided in the checklist below for each CEQA subject area. 27 City of Santa Ana 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the GPU EIR, and then discuss whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, or if further analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the GPU EIR. Project Significant Potentially Adverse No New Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact Impact Impact that is Analyzed as Off site or More Severe not Significant in Cumulative based on Substantially the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Mitigated by Discussed New Uniformly in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies 5.1 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 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed aesthetics impacts on pages 5.1-20 through 5.1 -32. The GPU EIR describes that buildout under the GPU would be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana's existing skyline. However, the EIR determined that buildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic highways. The EIR also determined that the GPU would create new sources of fight or glare, but adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes. 28 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. The GPU EIR describes that the 55 Freeway/Dyer Street focus area (that the Project site is located in) is not along a scenic corridor, but it is located in close proximity to a major City entry. The GPU EIR describes that the FLEX land use designation in the area allows for an urban environment with a mix of uses instead of an area that is almost exclusively focused on professional office and industrial. The GPU EIR further identifies that the Scenic Corridors Element identifies selected views of the City from SR-55 and that development consistent with the GPU, would enhance views of the City from SR-55. As the proposed Project would redevelop that site with a new modern one-story building, consistent with the GPU land use designation, it would not result in an impact related to a scenic vista. As detailed in Figure 5, Conceptual Site Plan, the proposed building would be setback from the roadway; and therefore, would not encroach into existing views along the Garry Avenue or SR-55 roadway corridors. Thus, the Project would result in no new impact related to effects on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The California State Scenic Highway System Map shows that there are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The only officially designated scenic highway within Orange County is a portion of SR-91 that is located between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit, which is not in the vicinity of the Project site. Likewise, there are no County -designated scenic highways that run through the City of Santa Ana. Further, the proposed Project site is flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of the Project. Therefore, no new impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. 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? No New Impact. The Project is in an urbanized area. The Project proposes to demolish the existing three office buildings and to construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants. The proposed building would be developed in compliance with the FLEX-3 land use designation and M-1 (Light Industrial) Interim Development Standard as shown in Table AES-1 below. Table AES-1: Project Consistency with GPU and Municipal Code Standards Development Feature Development Standard Project Consistency GPU Standards for FLEX-3 FAR 3.0 The Project would have a FAR of 0.43 Building Height Maximum of 10 stories The proposed building would be a maximum height of 43 feet 6 inches which is less than the 10-story maximum. Municipal Code Standards for the M-1 Interim Development Standard Building Height May exceed the standard 35-foot The proposed buildings would be a limit set forth in the M-1 zoning maximum height of 43 ft and 6 inches. 29 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Development Feature Development Standard Project Consistency district as the project site is located in a height -exempt area. Lot Size Minimum of 12,000 SF The Project site is 5.2 acres Street Frontage Minimum of 100 ft Landscaping A yard is required along any lot The Project would include a 26-foot line which abuts a public street landscaped setback from Gary which in shall be of an area not Avenue. less than the length of such lot line in feet multiplied by: (i) Twenty (20) feet, if the street is designated in the general plan of the city as an arterial street; or (ii) Ten (10) feet, if the street is not so designated as an arterial street. The yard required by paragraph (a) shall include a strip immediately adjacent to the street and shall be of a width not less than: (i) Ten (10) feet, if the street is designated in the general plan of the city as an arterial street; or (ii) Five (5) feet, if the street is not so designated as an arterial street. Wall Height Walls and fences shall not exceed A 10-foot-high decorative screen wall 10 ft in height and shall not is proposed along the southwest exceed 4 ft in height where the property line. A 9-foot-high tube steel wall or fence extends into the screen fence is proposed along the required front yard or southeast property line, and a 10- landscaped area foot -high landscape buffer is proposed along the northwest property line adjacent to SR-55. Visual character and quality of the proposed industrial building would be similar to the existing building, but with aesthetic improvements, such as new architectural treatments, new landscaping, lighting, etc. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with regulations governing scenic quality of the Project site. As described previously, the GPU EIR determined that development consistent with the GPU, would enhance views of the City from SR-55. As the proposed Project would redevelop that site that is adjacent to SR-55 with a new modern one-story building, consistent with the GPU land use designation, it would not result in an impact related to visual character or quality. Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning or other regulation governing scenic quality. Therefore, and no new impacts would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No New Impact. The Project site is located within a developed urban area, adjacent to highly used roadways. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site includes: vehicle lights from SR-55, streetlights along Garry Avenue, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, landscape 30 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project lighting, and lighting from building interiors that pass -through windows. The exterior lighting on the Project site includes exterior lighting throughout the parking areas and lighting at buildings entrances. The proposed Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the building and parking areas. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a similar intensity development on the site than currently exists, which would contribute similar sources of light to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Also, all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-611.1 and Section 41 -1 304 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the Project area is within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required to comply with the City's lighting regulations that would be verified by the City's Planning and Building Agency during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, no new lighting impacts would occur from the Project. Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker, or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and the proposed building would not be glass sided. Although the proposed building would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural treatments, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and no new impacts would occur. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of aesthetics, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures None are applicable to the Project. 31 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No New Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact Impact Impact that is Analyzed as Off site or More Severe not Significant in Cumulative based on Substantially the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Mitigated by Discussed New Uniformly in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies 5.2 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and 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? 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 51 104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LEI of forest land to non -forest use? 32 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed agriculture and forestry resource impacts on pages 8-1 and 8-2. The GPU EIR determined that the City does not have any significant agricultural resources and has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Santa Ana does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts associated with conversion of farmland and forestry would not occur, and no mitigation measures related to agricultural, or forestry were required or identified. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No New Impact. The Project site is on Urban and Built -Up Land according to the California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder Map. The Project site is surrounded by Urban and Built - Up Land. No farmland or other agricultural uses are located near the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to farmland or agriculture. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. As identified above, the Project site does not include agricultural land. The Project site has a General Plan land use of FLEX-3 land use and an Interim Development Standard of M1 (Light Industrial). Additionally, the Project site is not currently under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on conflicts 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 51 104(g))? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is currently developed and located within an urban and developed area. The Project site does not include forest land or timberland. The Project site is designated as FLEX-3 and has an Interim Development Standard of M1. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflicts with existing forest land or timberland zoning. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is currently developed and located within an urban and developed area. The Project site does not include forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conversion of forest land to non -forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 33 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project No New Impact. As identified above, the Project site does not include agricultural land. The site is developed and is not used for agricultural purposes. The site is not designated or zoned for forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non -forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conversion of agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest use. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of agricultural/forestry resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 34 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed as Off site or More Severe Impact not Significant in Cumulative based on Substantially the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Mitigated by Discussed New Uniformly in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies 5.3 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 pollutant 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) affecting a substantial number of people? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed air quality impacts on pages 5.2-45 through 5.2-72. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU is inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. The EIR included Mitigation Measure AQ-2; however, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. Therefore, the GPU determined that impacts related to the AQMP, and air quality emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The GPU EIR also determined that construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD'S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction -related activities to the extent feasible. However, the EIR determined that construction time frames and equipment for site -specific development projects have a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction -related emissions. Thus, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. 35 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project The GPU EIR also determined that because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project -related construction activities and large emitters of on -site operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD's Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The EIR describes that Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The GP EIR also describes that buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants JAC). Mitigation Measure AQ-3 was included to ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project - level environmental review by the City of Santa Ana. The EIR describes that individual development projects would be required to meet the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, and TACs would be less than significant a project level but would result in a cumulative contribution to health risk that is significant and unavoidable. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized, and facilities would comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). A project is considered consistent with the AQMP if it would not result in or cause California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations. In addition, the SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Furthermore, The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non -attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. The Project proposes to demolish the existing three buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and to construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot industrial building that would accommodate two tenants with 5 dock doors for each tenant. Of the 91,500 square feet, 81,500 square feet would be used for warehouse facility and 10,000 square feet would be used for office space. The GPU and GPU EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed with the FLEX-3 designation that allows for clean industrial uses. The Project is consistent with the development assumptions for Project site in the GPU EIR, and the land use designations of the GPU are consistent with the 2016 AQMP. As detailed in Response b), the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed Project determined that construction and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, including the CAQQS and NAAQS. The proposed Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the current 2016 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflict with implementation of an air quality plan. 36 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? No New Impact. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction (Ibs./day) Operations (Ibs./day) NOx 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 sox 150 150 CO 550 550 Lead 3 3 Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition of the existing structures and removal of the existing infrastructure and pavement, (2) site preparation, (3) grading, (4) building construction, (5) paving, and (6) architectural coating. The volume of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. It is mandatory for all construction Projects to comply SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PMio, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 1 2-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rules 403 and 1 1 1 3 were accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ-2, construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Further, the Project s contribution to cumulative levels of any criteria pollutant would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Table AQ-2 Maximum Peak Construction Emissions Reactive Coarse Fine Organic Nitrogen Carbon Sulfur Particulate Particulate Construction Year Gases (ROG) Oxide (NOx) Monoxide Dioxide Matter Matter (CO) (S02) (PM10) (PM2.5) Construction Year 1 3.96 40.82 24.00 0.07 20.91 11.53 Construction Year 2 45.41 17.55 19.85 0.04 2.05 1.11 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 750 750 55 Exceed SCAQMD No No No No No No Threshold? Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) 37 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Operation Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, mobile source emissions, and on -site equipment emissions. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. Operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions from implementation of the Project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CaIEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria pollutants, however, these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project's operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant. Table AQ-3: Proposed Project Operational Emissions Source Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Coarse Particulate titter ) Fine Particulate Matter (M2.5) Summer Emissions Area Source Emissions 2.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Emissions 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Emissions 0.52 6.65 6.34 0.04 2.80 0.81 Off -road Emissions 1.97 16.47 15.95 0.04 0.85 0.78 Total Emissions 4.61 23.22 22.39 0.08 3.65 1.59 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 55 750 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Winter Emissions Area Source Emissions 2.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Emissions 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Emissions 0.53 6.92 6.08 0.04 2.80 0.81 Off -road Emissions 1.97 16.47 15.95 0.04 0.85 0.78 Total Emissions 4.61 23.49 22.13 0.08 3.65 1.59 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 750 55 750 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. The daily construction emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project are evaluated against SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. Receptor locations are off -site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from Project activities. Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre- existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as "sensitive 38 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project receptors"; they are also known to be locations where an individual can remain for 24 hours. The nearest residential receptor is located approximately 2,200 feet north of the Project site. In addition, it is noted that a dialysis center is 700 feet to the northeast. Daily construction emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project are evaluated against SCAQMD's screening look -up tables for LSTs that have been interpolated for a 2.5-acre site as the proposed construction would disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres per day during grading activities. The appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST analysis is Central Orange County (SRA 17). Although the nearest residence is approximately 2,200 feet from the Project, the Air Quality Assessment provides a conservative analysis of potential LST impacts at the dialysis center, 700 feet (21 3 meters) from the site is provided to identify maximum potential impacts. As shown in Table AQ-4, emissions resulting from Project construction would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Table AQ-4: Project Localized Significance Summary of Construction Construction Activity Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM10) Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Demolition (2021) 31.44 21.57 11.72 2.98 Site Preparation (2021) 40.50 21.15 20.91 11.53 Grading (2021) 24.74 15.86 7.89 4.32 Building Construction (2021) 17.43 16.58 0.96 0.90 Building Construction (2022) 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76 Paving (2022) 1 1.1 2 14.58 0.57 0.52 Architectural Coating (2022) 1.41 1.81 0.08 0.08 Maximum Daily Emissions 40.50 21.57 20.91 11.53 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted for 2.5 acres at 213 meters) 159 31119 76 29 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) Table AQ-5 identifies the localized operational impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. As shown in Table AQ-5, emissions resulting from Project operations would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Table AQ-5: Project Localized Significance Summary of Operations Nitrogen Carbon Particulate Particulate Activity Oxide (NOx) Monoxide Matter (PMio) Matter (PM2.5) (CO) On -Site Emissions (Area, Energy, and Off- 16.57 16.05 0.85 0.78 road Equipment Sources) SCAQMD Localized Significance 204 4,248 23 8 Threshold (5 acres at 2 7 3 meters) Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) 39 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No New Impact. The proposed Project does not include heavy industrial, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding, or other land uses that typically result in emissions associated with odor complaints, based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Project would provide for warehousing. Potential emissions that may lead to odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust. However, these emissions and any associated odors would be localized and temporary in nature and would not be sufficient to affect a substantial number of people or result in a nuisance as defined by SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed Project would not result in any substantial impacts related to odor. The Project would result in no new impacts on other emissions affecting a substantial number of people. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of air quality, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) AQMD Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. AQMD Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following: • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. AQMD Rule 1 1 13. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1 1 1 3. Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are 40 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403, such as: o Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD's website. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Air Quality Assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix A. AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site -specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) 41 City of Santa Ana of the CALGreen Code. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star —certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Air Quality Assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix A. AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on -site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because it would only generate 44 truck trips per day, as detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation. 42 City of Santa Ana 5.4 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 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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 Game or US 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, filling, 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 a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Off site or More Severe Impact not as Cumulative based on Substantially Significant Impact not Substantial Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed New Uniformly EIR in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 43 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed biological resource impacts on pages 5.3-17 through 5.3-22. The GPU EIR describes that the parcels within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road focus area, which includes the Project stie, have a land use designation of Professional and Administrative Office that would change to Industrial/Flex under the GPU. The vegetation community observed within these parcels is classified as "ruderal", which is not native nor considered to be a sensitive vegetation community. Since the existing vegetation communities are not sensitive and non-native, the GPU EIR determined that no impact would occur. The GPU EIR also determined that Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waterways. However, the GPU EIR includes mitigation that requires biological review of project sites that include vegetated land or streams. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The EIR also describes that impacts from buildout of the GPU to nesting sites and migratory birds would be less than significance with compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. The Project site is fully developed with office buildings and associated uses. Additionally, the Project site is not identified within an area of special -status wildlife species. The Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that there are no native habitats on the Project site and no wetlands or waters of the U.S., RWQCB, or CDFW exist onsite. No special -status plant or wildlife species were identified and there is no potential for special -status species to occur onsite due to the lack of native habitat, lack of aquatic features, and the high level of development on -site and in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed with urban uses. The Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that there are no native habitats on the Project site and no riparian habitat exist onsite or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed and does not include wetlands. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts to wetlands. 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 New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed with three office buildings and the site is surrounded by urban development, including a freeway and commercial and light industrial development. The Project site does not contain established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and is not used as a native wildlife nursery site. The Project site includes ornamental trees that would be 44 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project removed as part of the Project. Tree removal and/or indirect impacts from construction activity during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory species covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. However, compliance with these existing regulations, as ensure through the City's development permitting process, the Project would not result in new impacts on migratory fish or wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 33, Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees, establishes regulations and standards related to public trees and street trees. The Project would install street trees along Garry Avenue that would be ensured to be incompliance with City regulations through the City's development permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources. 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? No New Impact. The Project site is outside of the Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) identified in the GPU EIR. There are no other Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on habitat conservation plans. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of biological resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 45 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed Offsite or More Severe Impact Substantially as Cumulative based on Mitigated by Significant Impact not Substantial Uniformly in the Prior Discussed New Applied EIR in the prior Information Policies EIR 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §1 5064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed cultural resource impacts on pages 5.4-26 through 5.4-31. Historic Resources. The GPU EIR described that certain development pursuant to the GPU may not be able to avoid impacts to historical resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce most impacts to a less than significant level. However, if significant impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3. The GPR EIR determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future development under the GPU would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible but would still be significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Archaeological Resources. The GPU EIR discussed that development involving ground disturbance has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources, and details that eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The City includes locations may have been used for prehistoric Native American occupation, and buried resources may remain. The EIR determined that there is a moderate likelihood that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment. Therefore, EIR mitigation requires that Phase I Cultural Resources studies be completed before ground disturbances and demolition activities are permitted to occur. The GPU EIR included Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL- T to reduce potential individual and cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site. Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate resource sensitivity. The EIR determined that upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7, individual and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Human Remains. The EIR determined that the likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are 46 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No New Impact. CEQA defines a historical resource as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project's Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]). The California Register defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The Project site is currently developed with three office buildings, which are 34,000 square feet (1700 East Garry Avenue), 18,000 square feet (1720 East Garry Avenue), and 19,000 square feet (1740 East Garry Avenue) and were constructed between 1972 and 1974. The existing office structures are modern one-story cement and stucco buildings with windows that are surrounded by parking. The buildings are currently between 48 and 50 years in age and were not identified as historic structures in the GPU, and no historic resources are located adjacent to the site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment historical research identified that prior to development of the existing buildings, the site and surrounding areas were used for row crops. City directories confirm the site has since been occupied by various commercial office tenants that include: printers, carpet cleaners, roofers, and office uses, which are not historically significant. A Historic Resources Assessment was prepared for the project site (Appendix C), which determined that the existing buildings on the Project site do not qualify for designation under the Local Register or the CRHR. The Project site and buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically, nor are they the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer under CRHR 3 / Local Register 1, 2, 3. No specific information was identified to indicate that the property exemplifies or represents a special element of Santa Ana's history or is connected with a business or use that was once common but is now rare under CRHR 1 and 2 / Local Register 4 and 6. Also, the Historic Resources Assessment determined that the Project site is unlikely to yield information important to an archaeological site under CRHR 4 / Local Register 5. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact related to an adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No New Impact. As described in the GPU EIR, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates, which were likely found in close proximity to the Santa Ana River. As required by General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure CUL- 4, an Archaeological Resources Assessment has been prepared and is included in Appendix D. The 47 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Archaeological Resources Assessment describes that the Project site has been previously disturbed by grading, and fill soil was identified in soils tests to a depth of five to seven feet. The Archaeological Resources Assessment determined that based upon the previous grading disturbance of the site and the sparse number of recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity, the Project site has a very low potential to contain buried and in situ cultural resources. Thus, the Archaeological Resources Assessment determined that it is highly unlikely that any resources would be impacted by redevelopment of the site. Based on the very low potential of the site for archaeological resources, the Project would not be required to implement GPU Mitigation Measures (listed below) related to archeological monitoring. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nevertheless, should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project development, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Project would not result in significant impacts to human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to disturbance of human remains. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of cultural/archeological resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian 48 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is applicable to the proposed Project as the onsite buildings were developed between 1972 and 1974 and are a minimum of 48 years old. A Historic Resources Assessment was prepared and is included as Appendix C. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary's Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource. CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and 49 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve impacts to a historical resource. CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade —prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground - disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Archaeological Resources Assessment has been prepared and is included in Appendix D. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the Project MMRP. CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground - disturbing construction and pre -construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation 50 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-b is not applicable to the proposed Project because the site has been determined to have very low sensitivity for archaeological resources. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-7 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the site has been determined to have very low sensitivity for archaeological resources 51 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact Substantially Significant in Cumulative based on Mitigated by the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Uniformly Discussed New Applied in the prior Information Policies EIR 5.6 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? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.5-15 through 5.5-20. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU policies, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No New Impact. Construction During construction of the proposed project would consume energy in three general forms: 1. Petroleum -based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips; 2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Construction activities related to the proposed development and the associated infrastructure is not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per -development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the Project site and region. Construction of the Project would result in fuel and electricity consumption from the use of construction tools and equipment, vendor and haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the site. There are no unusual project characteristics that would cause the use of construction 1 Based on Appendix A of the CalEEMod User's Guide, Construction consists of several types of off -road equipment. Since the majority of the off - road construction equipment used for construction projects are diesel fueled, CalEEMod assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel. 52 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, construction -related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and there would be no new impacts. Operation The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. As previously described, the site is currently developed with three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet, and the Project would result in a smaller 91,500 square foot building, reducing the area that needs energy resources. Also, due to implementation of new technology and compliance with current Title 24 requirements, the Project would improve energy efficiency over the existing aged structures that were developed between 1972 and 1974. Thus, no wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No New Impact. The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting. The City's administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. The non-residential building would be solar ready would have infrastructure as required by CCR Title 24 requirements. Thus, the proposed Project would not obstruct use of renewable energy or energy efficiency. Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no new impacts would occur. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of energy, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24 energy efficiency standards GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 53 City of Santa Ana 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 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 1 8-1 -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 waste water 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? Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed as Offsite or More Impact Substantially Significant in Cumulative Severe Mitigated by the Prior EIR Impact not based on Uniformly Discussed Substantial Applied in the prior New Policies EIR Information ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 54 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.6-20 through 5.6-24. The GPU EIR discussed that the location and underlying geology of the City make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP Zoning Act in the City and all structures that would be constructed in accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as found in the latest CBC. Most of the City area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with respect to slope stability, as the City is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR determined that the probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Also, the EIR determined that future development in the City would require connection to the City's sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks. The GPU EIR described that grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, the GPU EIR included Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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? No New Impact. The Project site is not within an Alquist Priolo fault zone and is not in an area where structures are at significant risk from fault rupture. The closest published active fault to the site is the San Joaquin Hills Fault, approximately 2 miles from the Project site. Other active faults in the vicinity of the site include the onshore extension of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 5 miles southwest of the site, the Palos Verdes Fault, approximately 25 miles to the west, the Elsinore Fault, approximately 17 miles to the north. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to rupture of an earthquake fault in the Alquist Priolo fault zone. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? No New Impact. As discussed previously, there are a number of potentially active and active fault systems located near the Project site. As required by California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 16 for the construction of new buildings or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts to human life and property caused by seismically induced ground shaking. Compliance with CBC Chapter 16 would be verified through the City's plan check 55 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project and permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) describes that the Project site is mapped as being located within a liquefaction zone; however, the liquefaction hazard is very low due to limited settlement potential and the general discontinuity of weaker soil layers across the site. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the CBC would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction. Development of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the CBC, which are reviewed by the City for as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new hazards from seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction would occur. iv. Landslides? No New Impact. The Project site is topographically flat and is not near a hill or other area that could be vulnerable to landslides. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to landslides. b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. The Project site is flat and does not contain sloped conditions that would result in conditions outside of those evaluated under the GPU EIR. The Project would demolish the existing three buildings, landscaping, and pavement, and construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot industrial building. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increase in potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Development greater than one acre in size is required to comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit (CGP) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which includes implementation of standard erosion control practices as required by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project site is fully developed, and proposed development would not substantially change imperviousness of the site, resulting in impacts to stormwater runoff velocity or volume. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts in soil erosion or the 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is not located within an area that is subject to landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. Also, as described previously, the liquefaction hazard is very low due to limited settlement potential and the general discontinuity of weaker soil layers across the site. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading would also be limited, Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new hazards related unstable geologic units or soils would occur. Appropriate design required by the CBC is reviewed by the City as part of the building plan check and development review process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 56 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No New Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation describes that the onsite soils have a medium to high expansion potential. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential for expansion. Compliance with the CBC would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction. Also, the Project includes over -excavation and re -compaction of the site soils to at least 7.5 and 3 feet below finished or existing grade (whichever is deeper) within building and pavement/flatwork areas, respectively, which would be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the CBC. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new impacts related to expansive soils would occur. 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 wastewater? No New Impact. The Project would be connected to sewer and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact. Although the GPU did not identify records of fossils from within the City, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) has records of 16 fossil localities within a five -mile radius of the City, with the closest fossil locality approximately 2.5 miles south of the City. According to the GPU EIR, the Project site is located within an area with a low potential for paleontological resources. However, as the Project includes over -excavation and re -compaction of the site soils to at least 7.5 feet below the existing grade into potentially native soils, GPU EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required to be implemented to reduce potential impacts consistent with the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of geology and soils, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Building Code, as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having "high" paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. 57 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site is not located within a high paleontological sensitivity area. GEO-2 Low -to -High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site is located within a low paleontological sensitivity area and will be included in the MMRP for the proposed Project. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified, and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-3 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the MMRP for the proposed Project. 58 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 5.8 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? Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact not Significant in Cumulative based on Substantially the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Mitigated by Discussed New Uniformly in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts on pages 5.7-31 through 5.7-40. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and monitoring the City's GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year 2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S- 03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal, but in the meantime, the EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR included a mitigation measure to require the City to update the Climate Action Plan every 5 years. However, this is not a project specific mitigation measure, and not directly related to development projects. The EIR determined that the GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No New Impact. The GPU EIR describes (on page 5.7-20) that if project emissions are below the 3,000 MTCO2e bright -line screening threshold, GHG emissions impacts would be considered less than significant. The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is provided in Table GHG- 1, Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown, the Project construction would result in approximately 483 MTCO2e. Per SCAQMD methodology construction GHG emissions are amortized over 30 years, then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 16 MTCO2e per year. 59 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Table GHG-1: Construction -Related GHG Emissions Category MTCO2e Construction Year 1 274 Construction Year 2 209 Total Construction Emissions 483 30-Year Amortized Construction 16 Source: GHG Assessment (Appendix F) Operational or long-term GHG emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on -site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off -site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table GHG-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which shows that the Project would generate approximately 1,668 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations of the Project. As such, the Project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e bright - line screening threshold and no new impacts would occur. Table GHG-2: Proposed Project GHG Emissions Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year Area 0 Energy 121 Mobile 806 Off -road 625 Waste 22 Water 78 Amortized Construction Emissions 16 Total Annual Project GHG Emissions 1,668 Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Source: GHG Assessment (Appendix F) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New Impact. As described above, the proposed Project would implement new FLEX-3 land uses that are consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR describes that new buildings associated with land uses accommodated under the proposed land use plan of the GPU, such as the proposed project, would be built to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Thus, the developments pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan or SCAG Regional Transportation Plan. SB 375 required SCAG to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG adopted the Connect SoCal Plan in May 2020. The Connect SoCal plan would reduce per capita vehicular travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region by projecting development that is generally consistent with regional -level 60 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project general plan data and implementing transportation projects. The GPU includes the following goals and policies to support the GHG reduction: • Conservation Element, Goal 3: Reduce consumption of and reliance on non-renewable energy to support the development and use of renewable energy sources (Policies 3.3 and 3.1 1). • Land Use Element, Goal 4: Support a sustainable Santa Ana through improvements to the built environment and a culture of collaboration (Policy 4.5). In addition, as discussed in Table 5.7-7 of the GPU, the GPU EIR found the GPU to be consistent with applicable polices from the SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. SCAG RTP/SCS policies and strategies that were evaluated include: • Focus growth near destinations and mobility options • Promote Diverse Housing Choices • Support Implementation of Sustainable Policies The Project would not conflict with identified SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS Goals and strategies. Additionally, Section 5.1 1, Land Use and Planning, include policies from the GPU that are pertinent to the Project. The Project was found to be consistent with all applicable policies. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Consistency with the Santa Ana CAP. The City of Santa Ana has an adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). For community -wide emissions, the CAP reduction goal is 15% below the baseline year 2008 by 2020, and 30% below the baseline year 2008 by 2035. The CAP includes community -wide measures that are collectively estimated to reduce emissions by 47,909 MTCO2e/year by 2035. The CAP recommends several measures that would achieve GHG reductions including installation of solar photovoltaic systems and compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. In support of these measures the Project would be implemented pursuant to the CALGreen Building (Title 24). The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include increased insulation; use of energy and water efficient appliances; water efficient plumbing and fixtures; Low-E windows, high performance; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); and more. In addition, the non-residential building would be solar ready would have infrastructure as required by Title 24 requirements. In complying with the Title 24 standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would not obstruct the City of Santa Ana CAP GHG reduction and would therefore not result in a new impact. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of greenhouse gas emissions, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24 energy efficiency standards GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 61 City of Santa Ana 5.9 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? 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 or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact Substantially Significant in Cumulative based on Mitigated by the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Uniformly Discussed New Applied in the prior Information Policies EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Summary of Imaacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.8-36 through 5.8-46. The GPU EIR discussed that construction and operations under the GPU would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Furthermore, the EIR describes that strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority would be required. TheGPU buildout is expected 62 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project to result in some increase in the number of hazardous waste generators; however, the EIR determined that hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release. The EIR describes that the City includes sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. The EIR also describes that Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. The EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City's Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies. Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and the EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would not expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. Construction. Project construction would require demolition of an existing buildings that were developed between 1972 and 1974 and construction of a new light industrial building, which would require grading activity. Buildings constructed in or before 1981 are presumed to contain asbestos containing materials, such as, floor tile/mastic, wall stucco, insulation, and roof mastic. An asbestos survey of the existing building would be conducted prior to demolition, as required by City permitting. Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing asbestos are present. These requirements include: SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, and Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations. Asbestos abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the State Department of Health Services. In addition, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling hazardous materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee -training programs. All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. Adherence to existing regulations, which require appropriate testing and abatement actions for hazardous materials, would minimize exposure to asbestos during construction activities. Proposed construction activities would also involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of other hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and other construction -related materials. In addition, 63 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City of Santa Ana during building permitting for construction activities. As a result, no new impacts related to hazardous material impacts during construction would occur. Operation Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to a speculative light industrial building. Although the Project would likely utilize common types of hazardous materials, normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment or workers within or in the vicinity of the Project. Per the GPU EIR, both the federal and state governments require all businesses that handle more than a specified volume of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to a regulating agency. Specifically, any new business that meets the specified criteria must submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report that includes an inventory of the hazardous materials generated, used, stored, handled, or emitted; and emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. The plans and permits are reviewed by the Fire Department and Building and Safety Departments, as part of project permitting procedures. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to 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? No New Impact. Construction The Project includes the demolition of an existing buildings and construction of a new, slightly larger light industrial building. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the Project to assess potential hazardous impacts, included as Appendix H. The assessment identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions on the site. The only identified issues concern groundwater contamination from offsite sources. As detailed in the Project Description, the Project is anticipated to excavate to approximately 7.5 feet below the existing grade. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) identified groundwater at 12 feet below grade and the depth to high groundwater is 10 feet below grade. Thus, construction of the Project is not anticipated to encounter contaminated groundwater. However, should groundwater be encountered, existing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) measures would be implemented through the City's typical construction permitting process. To further avoid an impact related to an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit. Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on -site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to: • Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers' recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction; • Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Operation The Project would include operation of a speculative light industrial building. As discussed above, operational use of hazardous materials on the Project site would be subject to federal, state, and local requirements that 64 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project aim to avoid and minimize the potential release of hazardous substances. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is contracted with the City of Santa Ana and would inspect the facility to ensure compliance with proper handling measures identified in the hazardous materials disclosure report and emergency response plan. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a school. The site is located within a commercial and industrial area. As described in the previous responses, Project construction and operation would involve the use and disposal of various hazardous materials. However, all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal state regulations that are implemented by the City. While the Project would involve the use and disposal of various hazardous materials, compliance with federal and state regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and impacts would be consistent with the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to hazardous emissions within on -quarter mile of a school. 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? No New Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix H) included database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not result a new impact related to hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No New Impact. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to a safety hazard related to an airport. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport that is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the safety zones of the airport. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to airport safety hazards. f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The Project would include demolition of the existing three office buildings and construction of a new light industrial building. The Project would not result in roadway closure, or other activities that could impact emergency response or evacuation. During short-term construction activities, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any substantial traffic queuing on nearby streets, and all construction equipment would be staged within the Project site. During the operational phase of the proposed Project, onsite access would be required to comply with standards established by the City. The proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via Garry Avenue. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 65 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project No New Impact. According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) is approximately 4.0 miles east of the City along the western edge of Loma Ridge, and about 3.8 miles away from the City at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Fire Hazard Severity Zones map, the Project is not within an area identified as a fire hazard safety zone (FHSZ). Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of hazards and hazardous materials, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 66 City of Santa Ana 5.10 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; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 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 iv) impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact Substantially Significant in Cumulative based on Mitigated by the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Uniformly Discussed New Applied in the prior Information Policies EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 67 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 5.9-29 through 5.9-38. The GPU EIR discussed that projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off -site or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the EIR determined that development pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? No New Impact. Construction Implementation of the proposed Project includes grading, site preparation, construction of new building, and infrastructure improvements. These activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water quality. Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction -related materials and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality. Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality. However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (and Municipal Code Section 18-156) would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer (QSD) is required to be included in the SWPPP for the Project. Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements, and the City's Municipal Code, which would be verified during the City's construction permitting process, would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would not occur. 68 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Operation The proposed Project would operate an industrial warehouse, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However, the on -site runoff will be collected into catch basins with filter inserts that are located throughout the site, drain into the underground storm drain system. Proposed development is compliant with the requirements set by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the RWQCB hydrology and LID standards, as described in the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I and Appendix J) that were prepared for the Project. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration and treatment of the site's runoff. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact. Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge capabilities of a given landscape. The Project site is currently developed, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identified that it is 85 percent covered with impervious surfaces. The Project proposes to demolish the existing 3 buildings and pavement and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface and reduction of groundwater recharge would not occur from the Project. Also, the Project would be required to comply with Orange County DAMP permit by employing BMPs for on -site detention/retention of stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, water to the Project site would be provided by City of Santa Ana that is dependent on surface water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) from the Colorado River and Northern California and the Orange County Water District that manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Further, the change of the site from three office buildings to one light industrial warehouse building would not generate an increased demand for groundwater. Therefore, the Project would not result new impacts on groundwater supplies or recharge. 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No New Impact. As discussed above, construction related to implementation of the proposed Project would expose and loosen building materials and sediment which has the potential to mix with stormwater runoff and result in erosion or siltation offsite. However, as described previously, a SWPPP (required by Municipal Code Section 18-156) would be developed for the Project. The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. SWPPP implementation would include monitoring by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) throughout Project construction to ensure site compliance with the SWPPP and CGP requirements. The Project site would be redeveloped with a light industrial building, parking, and landscaping. Post construction conditions would not include exposed soils and would not be susceptible to substantial erosion. LID would be incorporated into Project site design in compliance with the WQMP that would capture and treat stormwater runoff on site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact 69 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would include construction activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on- or off -site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the proposed construction requires a SWPPP, which would address site specific drainage issues related to construction activities and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. The Project site is currently developed, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identified that it is 85 percent covered with impervious surfaces. The Project proposes to demolish the existing 3 buildings and pavement and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface that could result in flooding would not occur. Also, the Project includes installation of a drainage system that would be required to meet the Orange County DAMP requirements, as ensured through Project permitting, and would connect to the existing offsite drainage. Therefore, the Project would not result in new impact related to 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? No New Impact. As described in the previous response, the Project site is currently developed, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix J) identified that it is 85 percent impervious. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface that could generate additional runoff would not occur. Also, the Project includes installation of a drainage system that would be required to meet the Orange County DAMP requirements, as ensured through Project permitting, and would connect to the existing offsite drainage. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? No New Impact. The Project site does not lie within a 100- or 500- year floodplain, as delineated by FEMA. The Project site is within Zone X, Area of minimal Flood Hazard. The Project would not result in alteration of existing drainage (flows or capacity) that could directly or indirectly impact onsite drainages or the adjacent areas. Therefore, the Project would not result a new impact related to flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No New Impact. The Project site is not within a flood hazard zone, and flooding impacts are not anticipated. Tsunamis are tidal waves generally caused by earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Project site is approximately 8 miles from the Pacific Ocean shoreline. Based on the inland location of the site, the Project site is not within a tsunami zone. A seiche is a wave created in a landlocked body of water (e.g., a lake or reservoir) from back -and -forth movement of the water resulting from high winds or an earthquake. There are no bodies of water near the Project site. Thus, impacts due to seiche would not occur. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to release of pollutants due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 70 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project No New Impact. As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would not occur. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The Preliminary WQMP for the Project complies with the Orange County DAMP. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City's permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan. Also, the OCWD manages basin water supply through the Basin Production Percentage, such that, the anticipated production of groundwater would remain steady, and as described previously the change of the site from three office buildings to one light industrial warehouse building would not result in increases for groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation, and no new impacts would occur. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of hydrology and water quality, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Municipal Code Section 18-156; Control of Urban Runoff. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 71 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Off site or More Impact not as Cumulative Severe Substantially Significant Impact not based on Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed Substantial Uniformly EIR in the prior New Applied EIR Information Policies 5.11 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 mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed land use and planning impacts on pages 5.10-1 8 through 5.10- 28. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would not divide an established community. Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The Project would demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The proposed Project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations and would not introduce roadways or other infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the Project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to dividing 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? No New Impact. The Project site has a GPU designation of FLEX-3. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX-3 designated area. As described in the GPU Land Use Element, the FLEX-3 designation allows for office/industrial flex spaces (such as the Project), R&D, clean manufacturing, and corporate headquarters. The GPU states that adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use designation will promote large-scale office/industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development uses in beautiful and creative buildings and spaces. The proposed Project would be consistent with the FLEX-3 land use designation and with the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Areas, as evaluated in the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact 72 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project related to conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of land use and planning, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 73 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Off site or More Impact not as Cumulative Severe Substantially Significant Impact not based on Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed Substantial Uniformly EIR in the prior New Applied EIR Information Policies 5.12 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? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed mineral resource impacts on pages 5.1 1-6 through 5.1 1-7. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU buildout would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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 New Impact. The California Department of Conservation does not designate the city as being within a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA), nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. The GPU and GPU EIR also did not identify mineral resources within the City, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No New Impact. The GPU does not include any designated areas of locally important mineral resource recovery. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to locally important mineral resources. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of mineral resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. 74 City of Santa Ana Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proiect None. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 75 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact Substantially Significant in Cumulative based on Mitigated by the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Uniformly Discussed New Applied in the prior Information Policies EIR 5.13 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne 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 or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed noise impacts on pages 5.1 2-29 through 5.1 2-50. Construction Noise. The GPU EIR described that Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Operational Noise. The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards and that Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise - sensitive receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures available to reduce project -generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing residences along affected roadways. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Construction Vibration Impacts. The GPU EIR discussed that construction activity would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment, that has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). The EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 and adherence to associated performance standards, would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. 76 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Operational Vibration Impacts. The GPU EIR discussed that commercial and industrial operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. The EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 and adherence to associated performance standards, impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant. Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less -than -significant levels. The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport -related noise. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project 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? No New Impact. General Plan Noise Standards The GPU includes standards related to excessive noise levels. The City's General Plan noise standards for noise -sensitive land uses are provided in Table N-1. Table N-1: City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards Land Use Category Sensitive Land Use Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Interior Exterior Residential Single-family, duplex, multi family 45 65 Institutional Hospital, school classroom playgrounds, church, library 45 65 Open Space Parks -- 65 Source: City of Santa Ana Noise Element City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 18-31 3, noise levels at residential properties are restricted from exceeding certain noise levels for extended periods of time. Table 5.10-3 provides the Municipal Code exterior noise standards that are applied to residential properties. Table N-2: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Residential Noise Standards Time Permissible Noise Levels (dBA) Lso L25 L8 L2 Lmax 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75 Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article VI, Section 1 8-31 2. With respect to construction -related noise, Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code specifies that noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City's established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Existing Noise Levels To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, noise measurements were conducted on April 8, 2021. As shown in table N-3, existing ambient noise ranges between 62.3 and 66.5 dBA Leq. 77 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Table N-3: Noise Measurements Site Location Leq Lmin Lmax Time (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 Along the east side of East Garry Avenue approximately 500 64.9 58.5 79.0 1 2:00 p.m. feet south of Pullman Street 2 Along the east side of Alton Parkway approximately 700 feet 66.5 52.2 82.8 12:20 p.m. from the intersection of Daimler Street and Alton Parkway 3 Along the western portion of Duryea Avenue, approximately 50�62.3 57.6 73.9 1 2:38 p.m. feet south of SR-55 Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K) Construction Project construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition of the existing three buildings and pavement, site preparation and grading of the Project site, building construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building, paving of onsite driveways, parking lots and truck loading area, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project site are the single-family homes located as near as approximately 2,200 feet north of the Project site. In addition, a dialysis center is located 700 feet to the northeast of the site. Section 1 8-31 A (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code specifies that noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City's established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated as part of the Acoustical Assessment completed for the Project included as Appendix K. Anticipated construction equipment noise emissions are identified below. As shown the highest construction noise would be 66.4 dBA Leq. Table N-4 Project Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Receptor Worst Case Modeled Exterior Noise Level (dBA Leq) Noise Threshold (dBA Leq) Exceeded? Land Use Direction Distance (feet) Commercial Northeast 700 63.5 85 No Demolition Residential North 2,200 1 53.6 80 No Commercial Northeast 700 64.7 85 No Site Preparation Residential North 2,200 54.8 80 No Commercial Northeast 700 64.4 85 No Grading Residential North 2,200 54.4 80 No Building Construction Commercial Northeast 700 66.4 85 No Residential North 2,200 56.4 80 No Commercial Northeast 700 63.6 85 No Paving Residential I North 2,200 53.7 80 No Architectural Coating Commercial Northeast 700 50.8 85 No Residential North 2,200 40.8 80 No Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K) Table N-4 shows that construction noise levels would not exceed the 85/80-dBA threshold and would not exceed the City's municipal code allowable Lmax. Additionally, compliance with Section 18-314 (Special 78 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Provisions) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours. Therefore, no new impacts related to construction activities would occur. Operation The proposed Project would consist of the development of an industrial building. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Project would be from Project -generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite activities, which have been modeled and identified below. Mechanical Equipment. Stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g. heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. At 700 feet away, the location of the dialysis center, mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to 29.1 dBA, which is below the City's 65 dBA standard. Therefore, no new impacts would occur. Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks' diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Loading or unloading activities would occur on the east and southeast side of the Project site. Vehicular access to the proposed Project site would consist of two driveways along Garry Avenue on the east/northeast side of the Project site. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet. At 700 feet northeast of the proposed loading areas, the dialysis center would experience truck noise levels of approximately 40.6 dBA, which is below the City's acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise. Additionally, these noise levels would also be further attenuated by the intervening structures. Loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Noise levels associated with trucks and loading or unloading activities would not exceed the City's standards and no new impacts would occur. Parking Noise. The Project would provide parking stalls, trailer parking stalls, and loading spaces on the north and south of the proposed warehouse building near the site perimeter. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time - averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA at 50 feet. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors if any. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. Actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the existing ambient noise levels identified above. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on -site and would be up to 38.1 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor (which is below the City's 65 dBA threshold) located approximately 700 feet away. Parking lot noise also currently occurs at the adjacent properties under existing conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by background noise from traffic along Garry Avenue and SR-55. Therefore, no new noise impacts from parking lots would occur from the Project. Off -Site Traffic Noise. As detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation, Table T-1, the proposed Project would result in a reduction of trips by 915 daily PCE trips, which include 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour than the existing three office buildings. Due to the decrease in traffic, no new traffic related noise impacts would result from the Project. 79 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction No New Impact. Construction activities for the proposed Project would include demolition, excavation, and grading activities, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People working in close proximity to the Project site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Potential impacts of the Project are compared to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations in their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity, which is below the FTA's 0.20 PPV threshold for annoyance, as shown on Table N-5. The closest structure is the commercial use located approximately 40 feet from the Project construction area. Also, as shown Table N-5, construction VdB levels would not exceed 81 VdB at 40 feet (i.e., below the 100 VdB structural damage threshold). Therefore, no new impacts related to construction would occur from implementation of the Project. Table N-5: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (in/sec) PPV at 40 Feet (in/sec) VdB at 25 Feet VdB at 40 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0440 87 81 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0440 87 81 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0376 86 80 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0173 79 73 Small Bulldozer Tractors 1 0.003 0.0015 58 52 Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K) Operation Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration. Groundborne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the proposed Project would include passenger cars and trucks. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground -borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic -induced ground -borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to ground born vibration. 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 or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport that is located approximately 1.5 miles 80 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project south of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels from aircraft. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Municipal Code Chapter 18, Article 7 Noise and Vibration Control (Noise Ordinance). GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise - producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically 81 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of -sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-1 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the Project MMRP. N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-2 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve pile driving and no fragile structures are located near the Project site. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve development of residences and the site is not within 200 feet of a railroad. N-4 During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-4 is applicable to the proposed Project and an acoustical assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix K. 82 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Offsite or More Impact not as Cumulative Severe Substantially Significant Impact not based on Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed in Substantial Uniformly EIR the prior EIR New Applied Information Policies 5.14 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? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The GPU EIR addressed population and housing impacts on pages 5.1 3-12 through 5.1 3-15. The GPU EIR determined that full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the City's 20A5 population growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of Governments' 20A5 projections. Furthermore, the city's housing units at buildout would be 115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments' projection by 38 percent. The EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or housing, and impacts related to people and housing displacement would not occur. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The proposed Project would not directly result in unplanned population growth because it does not propose any residential dwelling units and development of the Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site, which are used by both local and regional agencies to determine anticipated growth. The FLEX-3 GPU land use designation allows for a FAR of 3.0 and the Interim Development Standard of M- 1 does not include standards for lot size or density. The proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the allowable FLEX-3 FAR; and the Project would be consistent with the M-1 (Light Industrial) development standards. Therefore, the Project is consistent with conditions evaluated under the GPU EIR and the Project would result in no new impacts related to unplanned population growth. 83 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No New Impact. The Project proposes demolition of three existing office buildings and construction of a new light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants. The Project would not result in displacement of existing housing or necessitate the need for housing elsewhere. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 84 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed as Offsite or More Severe Impact not Significant in Cumulative based on Substantially the Prior EIR Impact not Substantial Mitigated by Discussed New Uniformly in the prior Information Applied EIR Policies 5.15 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? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed public service impacts on pages 5.14-1 1 through 5.14-47. The GPU EIR The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center. The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval the GPU would not create significant impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school services. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project The proposed Project would remove the existing 3 office buildings that total 103,031 square feet and develop one new light industrial building that would be 91,500 square feet and would accommodate two tenants. Based on the GPU buildout methodology, the existing office buildings generate 1 employee per 286 square feet, which would total 360 existing employees on the site at full occupancy. The GPU buildout methodology identifies that warehouses generate 1 employee per 800 square feet. Thus, full occupancy of the proposed Project would generate 114 employees, resulting in a reduction of 246 employees on the site. a) Fire Protection 85 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project No New Impact. The nearest fire station is OCFA Fire Station 79, located at 1320 E Warner Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles to the Project site. The new industrial warehouse employees would replace the existing office employees on the site and result in a reduction of approximately 246 employees onsite at full occupancy. In addition, the existing older buildings would be replaced with new buildings with current fire safety infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project use is not anticipated to increase the in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, and the Project would not require construction of a new or physically altered fire station that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to fire protection services. b) Police Protection No New Impact. The nearest City of Santa Ana Police Station is the Santa Ana Southeast Substation, located at 1780 McFadden Ave #1 14B approximately 2.9 miles to north of the Project site. As described above, the Project would not increase the number of employees on the site. The proposed Project land use and operation would be similar to existing conditions. Crime rate and population density are not anticipated to be impact by the Project, and the new building would include current security measures that would be reviewed by the City during the development permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to police protection. c) School Services No New Impact. The nearest public school facilities include Monroe Elementary School (1.6 miles to the northwest), Manuel Esqueda Elementary School (2.2 miles to the northwest), Cesar E. Chavez High School (2.2 miles to the northwest), and Douglas MacArthur Fundamental Intermediate (2.2 miles to the west). The Project does not include any housing and would not directly create additional students to be served by schools. In addition, the Project would not increase the number of employees on site that could indirectly impact school attendance rates. Therefore, the Project would not result new impacts related to school services. d) Parks No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing; and would not directly increase the residential population of the City and generate additional need for parkland. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to parks. e) Other Public Facilities No New Impact. The Project would not result in a direct increase in the population of the Project site and would not increase the demand for public services, including public health services and library services which would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to other public facilities. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Fire Code, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 14. 86 City of Santa Ana GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 87 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 5.16 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 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed Off site or More Impact Substantially as Cumulative Severe Mitigated by Significant Impact not based on Uniformly in the Prior Discussed Substantial Applied EIR in the prior New Policies EIR Information ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed recreation impacts on pages 5.15-27 through 5.15-31. The GPU EIR discussed that the GPU would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated. The GPU EIR describes that buildout of the GPU would require construction or expansion of recreation facilities that could result in environmental impacts, and although required park fees for development could be sufficient to fund new parks and improvements, there is a lack of available land and lack of land designated as Open Space to develop new parks or expand existing facilities. The City of Santa Ana is essentially built. The GPU EIR includes Mitigation Measure REC-1 to monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area would contribute to reducing impacts to existing public parks within a 0.5 radius of the focus area. Compliance with this mitigation measure, regulatory requirements, and implementation of proposed GPU policies and implementation actions would reduce the potential impact of the proposed GPU on existing park facilities. However, the GPU EIR determined that because of the existing park deficiencies and scale of development in park -deficient areas, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing; and would not directly increase the residential population of the City and generate additional need for parkland such that use of existing facilities would increase and physical deterioration would be accelerated. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to physical deterioration of park facility. 88 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New Impact. The Project does not propose the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing and would not directly increase the residential population of the City to generate additional need for recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no new impacts related to expansion of recreational facilities. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of Recreation, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate the project's potential impacts on existing public parks within a one half (1 /2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the study determines that the project, or it's incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact. Measures to mitigate the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair -share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure REC-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve residential development. 89 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Off site or More Impact not as Cumulative Severe Substantially Significant Impact not based on Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed Substantial Uniformly EIR in the prior New Applied EIR Information Policies 5.17 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? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed transportation impacts on pages 5.16-25 through 5.16-37. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Also, the EIR determined that circulation improvements associated with future development pursuant to the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New Impact. The Project would change the site from three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet to one 91,500 square foot light industrial warehouse building that would accommodate two tenants. Based on the existing square footage, it is estimated that the existing office buildings generate approximately 1,117 daily trips, with 157 trips (1 38 inbound and 19 outbound) in the AM peak hour, and 148 trips (25 inbound and 123 outbound) in the PM peak hour. Table T-1 identifies the number of trips that would be generated by the Project. The Project trip generation is broken out by vehicle type and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors are applied to the truck trips to determine the PCE trip generation. Passenger car equivalent factors account for the additional roadway capacity utilized by trucks due to their larger size, slower acceleration and reduced maneuverability when compared to passenger cars. As shown, the proposed light industrial warehouse building would generate 90 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 915 fewer trips on a daily basis than the existing office buildings, with 137 fewer trips in the AM peak hour, and 126 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed light industrial warehouse building would generate 203 daily PCE trips including 20 AM peak hour and 22 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the existing trips generated from the existing three office buildings, the daily number of trips would be reduced by 915 trips, including 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to roadway circulation. Table T-1: Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates ITE Land Use ITE Code Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 KSF 10.84 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.25 1.20 1.44 Warehousing 150 KSF 1.710 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 Project Trip Generation Project Land Use Quantity Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I In Out I Total In I Out I Total Existing Use General Office Building 1103.031 1 KSF 11,117 1 138 1 19 1 157 1 25 1 123 1 148 Proposed Use Warehousing 91.500 KSF 156 12 4 16 5 12 17 Passenger V e hicles 79.57% 124 10 3 13 4 10 14 Trucks 20.43% 32 2 1 3 1 2 3 Project Trips — Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix Daily Vehicles PCE Factor Dail y AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Passenger V ehicles 79.57% 124 1.0 124 10 3 13 4 10 14 2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 5 1.5 8 1 0 1 0 1 1 3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 7 2.0 14 1 0 1 0 1 1 4+ Axle Trucks 112.33% 1 19 1 3.0 57 4 1 5 2 4 6 Total Truck PCE Trips 79 6 1 7 2 6 8 Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 203 16 4 20 6 16 22 Net Trips (Proposed PCE - Existing) -915 -122 -15 -137 -19 -107 -126 Source: Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum, Appendix L There is currently no transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities near the Project site. The closest OCTA bus stop is located at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Alton Parkway, approximately 0.6 mile from the Project site. In addition, there are no bicycle lanes or sidewalks near the Project site. The Project would not result in new impacts to transit or bicycle facilities. The proposed Project would install a new sidewalk along Garry Avenue and the site frontage that would improve the existing pedestrian circulation at the site. Thus, the Project would also not result in new impacts to pedestrian facilities. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in new impacts related to transportation. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013 and changed the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impact under CEQA. A key element of this law is the elimination of using auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The legislative intent of SB 743 was to "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse 91 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project gas (GHG) emissions." According to the law, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., a city's General Plan), studies, congestion management and transportation improvements, but these metrics may no longer constitute the basis for transportation impacts under CEQA analysis as of July 1, 2020. For example, in the City, the General Plan identifies LOS as being a required analysis, and even though it will no longer be a requirement of CEQA, unless the General Plan is amended, LOS will continue to be analyzed as part of Project review. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Based on input from the public, public agencies, and various organizations, OPR recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) be the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. As shown in Table T-1, the existing three office buildings currently generates 11,1117 daily trips including 157 trips during the AM peak hour and 148 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed light industrial warehouse would generate 203 daily PCE trips including 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 22 trips during the PM peak hour. When compared to the existing office buildings, the Project would generate 915 fewer daily trips, including 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour. Based on the City's VMT screening threshold, projects that generate or add 110 or fewer daily trips are considered less than significant impact and do not require a VMT analysis. Because the Project would result in a reduction of vehicle trips, it would not exceed the City's VMT screening threshold, and no new impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would occur. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact. The proposed Project includes only an industrial warehouse facility. There are no proposed uses that would be incompatible. The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. Operation of the proposed Project would involve trucks entering and exiting the Project site from Garry Avenue for access to the loading bays via two 30-foot-wide driveways (on driveway to serve each tenant) on either site of the proposed building. The onsite circulation design prepared for the Project provides fire truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the site. Thus, no impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would occur from the proposed Project. Also, Project improvements would be consistent with development standards for streets, sidewalks, and other public places as specified in Chapter 33 of the City Municipal Code. The City Department of Public Works would ensure plans are consistent with design standards as part of building permitting. Therefore, the Project would not result in new impacts related to hazards due to a design feature. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Construction The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project may require the temporary closure of one lane of Garry Avenue. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City's permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and that no new impacts would occur. 92 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Operation As described previously, the proposed Project would be accessed from a driveway along Garry Avenue. The site would include vehicle and truck access. The design and permitting of the onsite circulation would provide adequate and safe circulation. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City no new impacts related to inadequate emergency access would occur from the Project. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of transportation, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 93 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed Off site or More Impact Substantially as Cumulative Severe Mitigated by Significant Impact not based on Uniformly in the Prior Discussed Substantial Applied EIR in the prior New Policies EIR Information 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. 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: 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)? 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed tribal cultural resource impacts on pages 5.17-1 3 through 5.17- 15. The GPU EIR describes that the Sacred Land File search for the GPU yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records search at SCCIC indicated that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the City. Of these resources, eight archaeological resources were located within the City, which include four prehistoric sites with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The GPU EUR also describes that the City includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation, and that while the City is urbanized, buried resources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance. Additionally, the GPU EIR describes that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the City, and that buildout of the GPU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would be required to reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. 94 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project 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 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)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR (Impact 4.1 3-6) and was determined to be less than significant with mitigation. As detailed previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not meet any of the historic resource criteria and does not meet the definition of an historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing. As such, the Project would result in no new impacts related to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing and have cultural value to a California Native American tribe. b) 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 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 New Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on "tribal cultural resources" with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project's potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum. As described in the GPU EIR, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The City includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation, and buried resources may remain in areas where developments such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal ground disturbance. In addition, Project site soils consist of quaternary alluvium and undocumented fill materials that have the potential to include tribal cultural resources. Based on the moderate sensitivity of the site for resources, the Project would be required to implement GPU Mitigation Measure CUL-6 that requires a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the Project area to monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre -construction activities in areas of high sensitivity, which would reduce impacts consistent with the requirements of the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of tribal cultural resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 95 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-6, listed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. 96 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Significant Potentially Adverse No Peculiar Impact not Significant Impact New Impact that is Analyzed Off site or More Impact not as Cumulative Severe Substantially Significant Impact not based on Mitigated by in the Prior Discussed Substantial Uniformly EIR in the prior New Applied EIR Information Policies 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction 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 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed utilities and service system impacts on pages 5.18-35 through 5.18-64. The GPU EIR discussed that development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure would support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU. Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. The EIR also describes that development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore, GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities 97 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with related solid waste regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the EIR determined that the net increase in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas forecasts that it would supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Require or result in the 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? No New Impact. The Project proposes to demolish the existing three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet, landscaping, and pavement, and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehouse building with landscaping that would accommodate two tenants. Water The Project site is currently served by the City's water utility. The proposed Project would install new water lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch water line within Garry Avenue. The Project would not require construction of new or expanded offsite water lines. The removal of the existing three office buildings and development of one light industrial warehousing building would not result in an increase in water demand, and no additional water lines are required. Wastewater The proposed Project would install new onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line within Garry Avenue. The Project would not require construction of new or expanded offsite sewer lines. The removal of the existing three office buildings and development of one light industrial warehousing building would not result in an increase in wastewater generation, and no expansions to the wastewater treatment system would be required. Stormwater The Project would install a new onsite drainage system that would connect to the existing 18-inch drain in Daimler Street. The onsite drainage would convey runoff to biofiltration basins that would treat flows prior to discharge, and reduce flows as required by the Orange County DAMP, which would be ensured through the Project permitting process. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not increase stormwater runoff, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off -site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing off -site facilities. Electric Power The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities. Natural Gas The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new gas facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to construction of new or expanded utilities that could result in significant environmental effects. 98 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? No New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate a 1,660,558 gallon per day increase in water demand that would be within the planned supplies from the City, the Orange County Water District, and Metropolitan during normal -dry and multiple -dry year scenario. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less water demand than the GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing water supplies, and no new impacts related to water supplies would occur. 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? No New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate 538,450 gallons per day of wastewater. The GPU EIR also details that that the increase would be accommodated by OCSD's Treatment Plant No. 1. The proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less wastewater generation than the GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing wastewater infrastructure, and no new impacts related to wastewater facilities would occur. 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? No New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate 275,728 pounds per day of solid waste. The GPU EIR also details that the Orange County solid waste landfill system would have the ability to provide for the GPU with long-term solid waste landfill capacity. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less solid waste than the GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing landfills and no new impacts related to landfill facilities would occur. In addition, the Project would comply with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Also, pursuant to AB 341, at least 75 percent of the solid waste that is generated during Project operation is required to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would be anticipated to result in 63.45 tons per year. All solid waste -generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. 99 City of Santa Ana Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project The proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new impacts related to conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. Conclusion With regards to the issue area of utilities and service systems, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. City of Santa Ana 5.20 WILDFIRES. 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) Require 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? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project Project Peculiar Significant Potentially Adverse No Impact that is Impact not Significant Impact New not Analyzed Off site or More Impact Substantially as Cumulative Severe Mitigated by Significant Impact not based on Uniformly in the Prior Discussed Substantial Applied EIR in the prior New Policies EIR Information Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The GPU EIR describes that according to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) is approximately 4.0 miles east of the City along the western edge of Loma Ridge, and about 3.8 miles away from the City at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs. Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that no impacts related to wildfires would occur. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles via Project roadways. A fire lane is included in Project design to provide adequate access for fire services. Furthermore, the Project would not result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of any public road that would impair or interfere with the implementation of evacuation procedures. Therefore, The Project would result in no new impacts related to impairment of an emergency response plan. itQ Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No New Impact. The Project proposes a light industrial development on a developed site within an area characterized by existing industrial, commercial, and office uses. As such, the Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks as compared to existing conditions because it is representative of existing development in the area. The Project site is not in an area identified at risk of fire hazard as identified within the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in new impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. c) Require 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 New Impact. The Project would not include 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. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No New Impact. As previously discussed in Section 5.10, the Project site is not in an area susceptible to flooding and would not result in changes to drainage. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.7, the Project site is not in an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Conclusion Therefore, with regards to the issue area of wildfire, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR. Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Fire Code, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 14. GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. 102 City of Santa Ana 6 Document Preparers and Contributors Lead Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 CEQA Document Preparer: EPD Solutions, Inc. Konnie Dobreva, JD Brooke Blandino Meaghan Rupard Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 103 Community Plan Exemption Checklist City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project 7 References California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d8O7c46cc8e8O5 7116f1aacaa City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, 2022. Accessed: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan- documents/ City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - October 2021. Accessed: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan-environmental-documents/ City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Accessed: https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_ of_ ordinances?nodeld=SAANMUCO Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. "EnviroStor Database." Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Geosyntec Consultants, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1700-1740 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Air Quality Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Acoustical Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum for the Proposed Garry Avenue Business Park Project in the City of Santa Ana". Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for 1700 Garry Avenue" City of Santa Ana, CA. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. " Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Garry Avenue Business Park" City of Santa Ana, CA. Rocks Biological Consulting, 2021. "Biological Assessment for the Garry Avenue Project, Santa Ana" Stony Miller Consulting. 2020. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Garry Avenue Business Park." South Coast Air Quality Management District. n.d. "RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings." http://www.agmd.gov/rules/reg/reg 11 /r1 1 1 3.pdf. —. n.d. "RULE 1186. PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations." http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1 1 86-1-less-polluting- sweepers.pdf?sfvrsn=4. n.d. "RULE 403. Fugitive Dust." http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. —. n.d. "RULE 431.2. Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels." http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-431-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Urbana Preservation & Planning. 2022. "Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, California 104 City of Santa Ana This page intentionally left blank. Community Plan Exemption Checklist Gary Avenue Business Park Project 105 PRISIRNIQN & PIANNINGLU July 21, 2022 Attn: Konnie Dobreva EPD Solutions, Inc. 2355 Main Street I Suite ioo, Irvine, CA 92614 Via Email: konnie(a)epdsolutions.com Southern California 7705 El Cajon Boulevard, # 1 Lo Meso, CA 9J942 6I9-543-06931P Northern California 248 3rd Street #841 Oakland, CA 94607 570-663-74431P www. urbanapresorvaf io n.co m RE: Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum 1 1700-174o E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, California. Introduction and Purpose The subject property at 1700-174o E. Garry Avenue is composed of three detached office buildings, 1700, 1720, and 1740. The property was constructed in 1973 and is 49 years old. It is not located within a historic district and is not identified as a historic property in the City of Santa Ana Property Information Search Database. The property has not been previously surveyed for eligibility under the City of Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (Local Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), orthe National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A new project is proposed forthe property and includes demolition of the three existing office buildings and construction of a new approximately 91,5oo square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants. One side of the building would have 42,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors. This Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum was prepared to conform to City of Santa Ana General Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. This HRA Memorandum was prepared by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC with contributions by Alexia Landa, BA, Historian and Wendy Tinsley Becker, RPA, AICP. Ms. Landa and Ms. Tinsley Becker exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Preparer qualifications are attached. The purpose of the HRA Memorandum is to inform the City of the potential forthe property's eligibility under the criteria of the CRHR and the Local Register, contained within Municipal Code Section 30.2, and to assess impacts to historical resources pursuant to Section 15o64.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines resultant from a proposed project. Definition of Study Area / Area of Potential Impact The study area encompasses the proposed project boundary which conforms to the parcel boundary. 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue is identified as Orange County Assessor Parcel No. 430-171-07. The study area was intensively surveyed to inform historical resource identification and project impacts analysis. A study area map is included as Figure 1 on the following page. Results are summarized in the following pages. URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION • HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum 1 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Attn: Konnie Dobreva, EPD Solutions, Inc. Page 2 of 3 re i. 5tuay Area ma wulluillu M. vvar 1..3al ly r%vc Building B: 1720 E. Garry Ave Building Q 1740 E, Garry Ave Project Boundary: � URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION • HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum 1 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Attn: Konnie Dobreva, EPD Solutions, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Intensive Level Survey Findings The study area and subject property, 1700-174o E. Garry Avenue is located on Block 9, Lot 116 of the Irvine Subdivision, and was annexed into the City of Santa Ana in 1968 as part of the Alton and Newport East Annex. The purpose of the annexation was to encourage industrial expansion of the city and as a source of future property tax revenue. Constructed in 1973, the subject property consists of three detached two-story, tilt -up concrete buildings that were developed by Rodeffer Investments, a company that was established in 1967. The 170o E. Garry Avenue building (Building A) is located toward the far west end of the parcel and faces California State Highway 55. The 172o E. Garry Avenue building (Building B) is located towards the north end of the parcel and faces E. Garry Avenue. The 174o E. Garry Avenue building (Building C) is located towards the south end of the parcel and faces neighboring property 1021 Duryea Avenue. The buildings measure 230ft x 75ft and are approximately 17,000 sq ft. Surface parking surrounds the property. The subject buildings are of identical construction and have a mostly symmetrical fagade, a rectilinear floorplan, a flat roof, and minimal architectural detail throughout. The buildings feature precast ribbed concrete panel walls, a gray border below the roofline, vertical ribbon windows between horizontal aluminum dividers, evenly spaced recessed entryways with vertical wood -siding painted in gray, wood -framed fixed windows, and flush and paneled doors. Commercial concrete staircases are located on both ends of the buildings. The 1700-174o E. Garry Avenue property does not qualify for designation under the Local Register or the CRHR. The property and buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically, nor are they the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer under CRHR 3 / Local Register 1, 2, 3. No specific information was identified to indicate that the property exemplifies or represents a special element of Santa Ana's history or is connected with a business or use that was once common but is now rare under CRHR 1 and 2 / Local Register 4 and 6. Lastly, further research and analysis of the subject property is unlikely to yield information important to an archaeological site under CRHR 4 / Local Register S. To arrive at these conclusions, Urbana documented and evaluated the property on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. We researched the property using previous Phase 1 technical studies, the City of Santa Ana Property Information Search, building permit records, city directory listings, historic aerial imagery, newspaper archives, and Urbana's in-house architecture and construction history library. The DPR forms include current photos, a property description, construction history, historical narratives on Santa Ana, suburban office plazas and tilt -up concrete construction, and include assessment under of the Local Register and CRHR criteria. Project Impacts Assessment The 1700-174o E. Gerry Avenue property does not appear eligible for inclusion on the Local Register orthe CRHR. As a result, the property does not qualify as an historical resource under CEQA. Future proposed projects would not cause an impact to historical resources within the Study Area / Area of Potential Impact. Because significant impacts have not been identified, additional mitigation is not recommended. Referto the attached DPR forms for additional property history and please contact the office with any questions or comments. Respectfully Submitted, A Alexia Landa, BA URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION • HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum 1 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Attn: Konnie Dobreva, EPD Solutions, Inc. Attachments Attachment 1. DPR Forms 1 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue URBAN PLANNING - HISTORIC PRESERVATION • HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Review Code Reviewer Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 1 of 27 Primary # HRI # Trinomial: CRHR Status C Other Listings: Date P1.Other Identifier: 1700 E. Garry Ave, 1720 E. Garry Ave, 1740 E. Garry Ave.; Garry Plaza Offices *P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication f�f Unrestricted *a. County Orange and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Tustin; Newport Beach Date 2022 T 5S ; R 9W ; _ ❑ of _ ❑ of Sec Unsectioned; S.B. B.M. c. Address 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue City Santa Ana Zip 92705 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11, 420861.79 mE/ 3729744.97 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) The subject property is sited south of E. Garry Avenue on Block 9, Lot 116 of the 1887 Irvine Subdivision. Identified as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 430-171-07-00, the property is located towards the southeast end of the City of Santa Ana, California. *P3a. Description: The evaluated property is located on a parcel identified as 430-171-07-00 and consists of three detached commercial -use buildings addressed 1700, 1720, and 1740 E. Garry Avenue. The buildings are sited on an irregular parcel, approximately 5.13 acres, located on the south side of E. Garry Avenue. The surrounding area is composed of light commercial and industrial -use properties, with buildings of similar construction. See Continuation Sheet for additional description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 Commercial Bldg. *P4. Resources Present: Z Building Z Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site ❑ District ❑ Element of District ❑ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: View of 1720 E. Garry Ave north elevation. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: ❑X-Historic: 1973 Building Permits *P7.Owner and Address: OCTA 1720 E. Garry Ave., CA. 92705 *P8. Recorded by: Alexia Landa, B.A. Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC www.urbanapreservation.com *P9. Date Recorded: July 2022 *P10. SurveyType: Historical Resource Assessment *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources or enter "none.") None *Attachments: ❑ NONE ❑X Location Map ❑X Continuation Sheet ❑X Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑ Archaeological Record ❑ District Record ❑ Linear Feature Record ❑ Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record ❑ Artifact Record ❑ Photograph Record ❑ Other (List): DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary # HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 2 of 27 CRHR Status Code: 6Z B1. Historic Name: Rodeffer Investments B2. Common Name: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue B3.Original Use: Commercial -Use B4. Present Use: Commercial -Use *135. Architectural Style: Tilt -up Concrete Construction *136. Construction History: Construction history is based on property building permits and historic and current aerial photography. In 1973, the subject property was initially improved with the construction of three tilt -up concrete buildings by land developer Rodeffer Investments. In November of 1973, Rodeffer Investments applied for a permit to construct three, two-story buildings (Permit No. 12296). The project was valued at $608,256. Based on historic aerials, the approximately 17,000 sq ft buildings featured a mostly symmetrical fagade with precast ribbed concrete panel walls, a flat roof, and rectilinear floorplan. Over the years, several permits were submitted for electrical, plumbing, and sewer. The only identified alteration made to the exterior of the subject buildings was in 2012. That year a permit was submitted to reroof the existing buildings (Permit #10175124). See Continuation Sheet for a complete list of property building permits. *137. Moved? 9 No ❑ Yes ❑ Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: No related features. 139a. Architect: Not Identified b. Builder: Rodeffer Investments. *1310. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A Period of Significance N/A PropertyType Commercial Applicable Criteria Local Register/CRHR Ineligible The study area and subject property, 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue is located on Block 9, Lot 116 of the Irvine Subdivision, and was annexed into the City of Santa Ana in 1968 as part of the Alton and Newport East Annex. Constructed in 1973, the 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue property does not qualify for designation under the Local Register or the CRHR. The property and buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically, nor are they the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer under CRHR 3 / Local Register 1, 2, 3. No specific information was identified to indicate that the property exemplifies or represents a special element of Santa Ana's history or is connected with a business or use that was once common but is now rare under CRHR 1 and 2 / Local Register 4 and 6. Lastly, further research and analysis of the subject property is unlikely to yield information important to an archaeological site under CRHR 4 / Local Register 5. See Continuation Sheet for additional information. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A *1312. References: See Continuation Sheet for References B13. Remarks: None *1314. Evaluator: Alexia Landa, B.A. Urbana Preservation & Plannina. LLC *Date of Evaluation: July 2022 (This space reserved for official comments) DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial# Page 3 of 27 *NRHP Status Code: 6Z *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue *Map Name: Tustin, Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle Maps *Date: 2022 *Scale: 1:24,000 URBANA PRESERVATION & PIANNINCtt P 25 s W5 DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial# Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 4 of 27 Site Plan Uullullllu M. 1/VV C. Vdrry NV6 Building B: 1720 E. Garry Ave Building C: 1740 E. Garry Ave DPR 523J (9/2013) Project Boundary: 0 *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 5 of 27 P3a. Description (Continued from page 1) 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Current Description Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Built in 1973, the subject property consists of three detached two-story, tilt -up concrete buildings that were constructed by Rodeffer Investments, a company that was established in 1967. The 1700 E. Garry Avenue building (Building A) is located toward the far west end of the parcel and faces California State Highway 55. The 1720 E. Garry Avenue building (Building B) is located towards the north end of the parcel and faces E. Garry Avenue. The 1740 E. Garry Avenue building (Building C) is located towards the south end of the parcel and faces neighboring property 1021 Duryea Avenue. The buildings measure 230ft x 75ft and are approximately 17,000 sq ft. Surface parking surrounds the property. The subject buildings are of similar construction and have a mostly symmetrical fagade, a rectilinear floorplan, a flat roof, and minimal architectural detail throughout. The buildings feature precast ribbed concrete panel walls, a gray border below the roofline, vertical ribbon windows between horizontal aluminum dividers, evenly spaced recessed entryways with vertical wood -siding painted in gray, wood -framed fixed windows, and flush and paneled doors. Commercial concrete staircases are located on both ends of the buildings. Current views of the property are included below and in the following pages. View of the west elevation of the property; 1700 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 6 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# View of the south elevation of the property; 1700 East Garry Ave. View of the east elevation of the property; 1700 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 7 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# View of the north elevation of the property; 1700 East Garry Ave. View of the west elevation of the property; 1720 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 8 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# View of the north elevation of the property; 1720 East Garry Ave. View of the east elevation of the property; 1720 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 9 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# View of the north elevation of the property; 1740 East Garry Ave. View of the east elevation of the property; 1740 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 10 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# View of the south elevation of the property; 1740 East Garry Ave. View of the west elevation of the property; 1740 East Garry Ave. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 11 of 27 136. Construction History (Continued from page 2) Table 1. Permit History Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Date Permitted Work Permit Issued to Owner: Rodeffer Investments 11/8/73 Construct Buildings (Permit #12296) Contractor: Self Owner: Rodeffer Investments 12/7/73 Plumbing (Permit #12495) Contractor: Karu Plumbing Co. Owner: Rodeffer Investments 12/13/73 Electric (Permit #2159) Contractor: Not listed Owner: Rodeffer Investments 2/15/74 Sewer (Permit #12955) Contractor: R & R Pipeline Owner: Rodeffer Investments 4/5/74 Plumbing (Permit #13482) Contractor: R & R Pipeline Owner: Rodeffer Investments 5/13/74 Plumbing (Permit #13950) Contractor: Not listed Owner: Rodeffer Investments 7/23/74 Electric (Permit #4174) Contractor: R. E. Foley Electric Install Interior Partitions -Suites 108-111 (Permit # Owner: Rodeffer Investments 6/10/74 14244) Contractor: Not listed Owner: Edwards Laboratory 1/16/78 Plumbing (Permit# 27097) Contractor: Niagara Plumbing Owner: Edwards Laboratory 1/19/78 Plumbing (Permit# 27097) Contractor: Niagara Plumbing Owner: DVM 12/29/82 Burglar Resistant Skylights in Corridor (Permit # 18478) Contractor: RMR Development Owner: DVM 2/3/83 P-Trap (Permit # 40254) Contractor: RMR Development Owner: DVM 2/3/83 P-Trap (Permit # 39564) Contractor: RMR Development Owner: Edward Laboratory 1/12/88 Plumbing (Permit # 27097) Contractor: Niagara Plumbing Owner: Mobile Home Part of America 10/27/88 Install Satellite Dish (Permit #51110) Contractor: Owner Owner: Equitable Garry Plaza Contractor: Y S J Construction & 12/1/12 Alteration Roof Screening (Permit #10175214) Roofing Owner: Equitable Garry Plaza Contractor: Y S J Construction & 5/21/12 Reroof (Permit #10175124) Roofing DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 12 of 27 1310. Significance (Continued from page 2) Historic Overview of Santa Ana Primary# HRI# Trinomial# William Spurgeon, a native of Kentucky, founded the City of Santa Ana in 1869.' Prior to the American Period, which began in 1848 following the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the secession of California from Mexico to the United States, much of what is now Orange County, along with most of Southern California, was held by Mexican families in vast tracts comprised of tens of thousands of acres. In the fall of 1869 Spurgeon and his partner Ward Bradford purchased approximately 74 acres of what once was part of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The men split their holdings with Spurgeon taking the eastern half where he founded his town. The original plat for Santa Ana was small, but courageous on Spurgeon's part, only twenty- four blocks of approximately ten lots each. At the time Anaheim was the only other community in region. Other towns followed close behind Santa Ana, including the cities of Orange and Tustin, which were founded in 1870. Santa Ana grew slowly at first. Spurgeon worked hard to ensure the success of his town by opening roads and digging wells, and when those no longer proved sufficient, he formed the Semi -Tropic Water Company to extend a canal from Orange to guarantee adequate water supply.z He also opened and operated a general store and post office with his brother at the corner of Fourth and West Streets (now Broadway). Because of Spurgen's efforts other businesses congregated in the area, establishing Fourth Street as the commercial district.' By the late nineteenth century Santa Ana had the appearance of a mid -sized town with many multi- story Victorian style brick buildings. Fourth Street sported several business blocks, banks, hotels and opera house. Santa Ana incorporated as a City in 1886 at the height of the real estate boom sweeping Southern California. Three years later, in 1889, present-day Orange County separated from Los Angeles County, incorporating as a separate municipality. Due to its geographical location at the center of the new county and its large population, Santa Ana was named as the County seat.4 By 1891 three railroad lines had been installed through Santa Ana; the Southern Pacific Railroad, which established Santa Ana as the end of the Orange County Line in 1877; the Santa Fe, which arrived in 1887 running from Los Angeles to San Diego; and the Santa Ana and Newport Railroad in 1891, which ran between Santa Ana and McFadden's Wharf in Newport Beach.' Until the 1940s the economy of Santa Ana, as well as greater Orange County, rested primarily on agriculture. Early on grapes and livestock were the principal products of the region. Chili peppers and Lima beans were later preferred. At the turn of the twentieth century sugar beets, grown for sugar production, had become such a significant crop in the area that Santa Ana was coined the "Sugar City."' Sugar beets were first grown in Orange County in 1891 and were shipped to Chino where the Oxnard brothers had recently opened a processing plant.' Another sugar factory was opened in Los Alamitos in 1897. The year 1908 witnessed the 'Leo J. Friis, Orange County Through Four Centuries (Santa Ana, CA: Friis — Pioneer Press, 1982), 59 and Esther R. Cramer, Keith A. Dixon, Diann Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice A. Blamer, eds. A Hundred Years of Yesterdays (Santa Ana, CA: The Orange County Centennial, Inc., 1988), 176, claim that Spurgeon hailed from Kentucky, while Charles D. Swanner, Santa Ana: A Narrative of Yesterday, 1870 —1910 (Saunder Press, Claremont, CA, 1953), 15, claims he was from Missouri. 2 Pamela Hallan-Gibson, The Golden Promise: An Illustrated History of Orange County (Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1986), 76. s Swanner, 17. a Cramer, et al.,36-37 and Friis, 96-98. s Hallan-Gibson, 112-113. 6 Cramer, et al., 41. 7 Friis, 104-105 claims this was in 1890, however the Chino plant didn't start operation until 1891, see "Beet Sugar in California," San Fransisco Chronicle, 12 January 1891 as well as Torsten A. Magnuson, "History of the Beet Sugar Industry in California," Annual Publication of the DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 13 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# opening of the Southern California Sugar Company, located south of the intersection of Delhi Avenue (now Warner Avenue) and Main Street, in Santa Ana. Four years later, with the backing of James Irvine, another refinery opened in the city - the Santa Ana Cooperative Sugar Company (later subsumed by the Colorado company Holly Sugar). This one sited on Dryer Road approximately one mile east of Main Street.' At the industry's height roughly 70 square miles of southwest Orange County were devoted to beet cultivation with four processing plants responsible for one fifth of the nation's refined sugar.' The beet curly top virus struck the region in 1919. The disease deforms the plant making it unusable for sugar production. The outbreak seriously affected sugar beet crops in the early 1920s, causing a steep decline in production. At the same time tree crops such as apricots, walnuts and citrus replaced beet fields, rapidly becoming the most significant agricultural products for the local economy. By 1930 only one sugar factory in Santa Ana remained operational.10 During the 1920s the Santa Ana region also attracted a significant influx of successful mid -western farmers; many settled on area ranches while others chose the comforts of the smaller subdivisions that sprung up around downtown. The arrival of the Pacific Electric "Red Cars" in 1905 allowed urban development to push out beyond the traditional city center.11 By the 1930s these small suburban tracts pushed further out into the agricultural lands, mostly north and west of the city center. The tendency to locate subdivisions further from established areas was further encouraged by the increasing popularity of the automobile. This trend continued as time progressed and the use of the automobile became more commonplace. Residential construction overtook agriculture as the region's economic engine in the post -World War II era. Returning servicemen flocked to Orange County in search of the American Dream. Developers bought up prime agricultural land, put in streets and infrastructure and then started building houses, hundreds at a time. Massive subdivisions replaced once thriving groves. Freeways encouraged continued growth, each new mile opening up areas that were once relatively inaccessible. The Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) traced its way south from Los Angeles reaching Santa Ana by 1952. Newly completed freeways provided easy access to the metropolitan area, effectively making Orange County a bedroom community of Los Angeles. Countless subdivisions advertised themselves within close proximity to freeways and metropolitan Los Angeles by association. The freeway also encouraged industry to establish itself within the Santa Ana region. Research and high-tech manufacturing companies established a presence in the area because of the abundance of housing, well- educated labor and ready access to open space and recreation, and a connection to metropolitan Los Angeles via the limited access freeways allowed products to be efficiently transported into existing supply chains. The development of additional business caused need for more housing - and the cycle continued.12 Between 1940 and 1960, the population of Orange County jumped from 130,760 to 703, 925 people.13 Historical Society of Southern California Part I Vol. XI (1918): 76-78. The same Oxnard brothers established a sugar refinery and town bearing their name in Ventura County, California. s Magnuson,76-78. 9 Friis, 105 and Steve Emmons, "Sugar Factory in Santa Ana - How Sweet It Was," Los Angeles Times, 31 October 1999. 0 Friis, 105 and Orange County Historical Society, Orange County (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2005), 79. Friis, 118. 12 Richard Bigger, James D. Kitchen, Lyndon R. Musolf and Carolyn Quinn, Metropolitan Coast: San Diego and Orange Counties, California (Los Angeles: Bureau of Governmental Research, 1958), 66-67 and Hallan-Gibson, 238. 13 Cramer, et al., 55. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 14 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# As subdivisions spread across the county shopping centers supplanted the traditional shopping areas like Fourth Street, Santa Ana. The new centers offered much that traditional downtowns shopping districts were missing. They were arranged for the pedestrian, often around a central mall, and stores were separated from car traffic and parking lots. They were also geographically closer to the newly developed suburbs, were conveniently located near freeways and had ample parking. Fashion Square was the first shopping center to open in Santa Ana area in 1958. The Bristol Shopping Center opened soon after, located at Bristol Street and Warner Avenue, in an area experiencing tremendous residential development. Into the contemporary period, in the 1970s and 1980s, Santa Ana, Orange County, and the greater Southern California region experienced an uptick in development of suburban business parks and commercial office parks. A product of the country's post -WWII car culture that emerged in the early 1950s, most of these office complexes were speculative, for -profit endeavors intended to house numerous tenants, both large 'anchor' companies and smaller sole -proprietor businesses offering goods or professional services. In this period, the city annexed surrounding lands including portions of the 1887 Irvine Subdivision that forms the neighboring City of Irvine. Corporate Office Parks and Suburban Business Plazas The Cultural Landscape Foundation defines a corporate office park as a complex of office buildings, often sited on a large tract of land near an arterial highway, outside dense urban concentration. Suburbanization of corporate headquarters evolved in the mid -twentieth century when corporations such as IBM, Weyerhaeuser, Pepsico, and Connecticut General moved their offices out of city centers and closer to the residences of their senior executives. The grounds were arranged as rolling parkland, often utilizing low-rise buildings. The site planning, automobile approaches, visitor entrances, employee parking lots, and service docks all exemplified the functionalism of mid -twentieth century Modernism. These park -like locations often provided settings for the display of corporate collections of large-scale public art, and, in certain cases, display of large-scale products such as the tractors at John Deere.14 In contrast to these pastoral campuses, suburban business plazas emerged along arterial thoroughfares between highways. In Orange County, at the junction of Tustin, Irvine, and Santa Ana, countless examples are present with many constructed in the 1970s and 1980s in the contemporary period. Many were constructed using tilt -up methods. Tilt -up Concrete Construction The subject property, located on Block 9, Lot 116 of the Irvine Subdivision, was annexed into the City of Santa Ana in 1968 as part of the Alton and Newport East Annex. The purpose of the annexation was to encourage the industrial expansion of the city and as a source of future property tax revenue. The subject property is a commercial / light industrial tilt -up concrete building constructed in 1973. Tilt -Up construction is a method in which concrete wall panels are cast on -site and tilted into place. Thomas Edison, founder of the Portland Cement Company in 1899, explored and later promoted tilt -up concrete construction as early as ca. 1908 with the construction of tilt -up detached single-family homes in Union, New Jersey. The Portland Cement Company supplied concrete and tilt -up molds for projects throughout the United States. Robert Aiken, generally regarded as the father of the tilt -up methodology, began using this method around the turn of the 20th century with the earliest examples being retaining walls at the Camp Logan Rifle Range, in Illinois, and a concrete factory on Aiken's own farm near Zion City, Illinois. Aiken poured the walls flat on a bed of sand, around door and window frames, and then tipped them up onto their foundation. He used the tilt -up method to construct the Memorial Methodist Church in Zion, as well as a two-story ammunition and gun house at Camp Logan. From here, Aiken refined his methods to include a steel tipping table that was used in the construction of 15 buildings in five different states. 14 Cultural Landscape Foundation, Corporate Office Park. https://www.tclf.org/category/designed-landscape-types/corporate- office-park. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 15 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# The post-WW II construction boom created a demand for more efficient construction methods, creating inroads for the tilt -up industry. The advent of high -capacity mobile cranes, portable welders (for rebar), custom lifting devices, structural wall bracing, and ready -mix concrete trucks enabled builders to erect tilt -up buildings quickly. Into the 1970s, engineers began developing designs to use tilt -up concrete walls as load - bearing structural elements. The proliferation of microcomputers enabled more sophisticated architectural treatments and complex panel shapes. These methods and systems were employed throughout the United States, including in Southern California where suburban business parks and commercial -office / business centers were constructed in isolated campus settings and along auto corridors radiating through cities between connecting highways. By the 1970s, Tilt -up construction was widely recognized by builders and commercial real estate owners as durable, with less opportunity for leaks, and an efficient construction process, making it the primary method of industrial and commercial buildings constructed in the 1970s and beyond, secondarily resulting in a monotonous horizontal landscape throughout Southern California's commercial -industrial zones. By the mid-1980s the Tilt -Up Concrete Association (TCA) was formed from the Portland Cement Association to provide input to code bodies, develop technical information to meet the needs of the Tilt -Up industry, and promote the benefits of Tilt -Up. Originally led by Executive Director Don Musser, the TCA was originally funded by the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) and the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), with each association also providing organizational supportY In the contemporary period, the most significant examples of cast concrete, tilt -up, and modular construction generally originate from the Brutalist style. From the French phrase ,beton ,brut, meaning "raw concrete," Brutalist architecture peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, but the style began several decades earlier, following World War II as Europe was in a state of rebuilding. The word "brutalism" in relation to architecture was coined in 1950 by Swedish architect Hans Asplund in reference to a home called Villa Goth. The style was designed for function and utilitarianism and was primarily used in social and institutional buildings. Mass- produced tilt -up buildings like 1700-1740 E. Garry represent the basest form of modular construction and are not regarded as examples of Brutalism, sharing only a common material and temporal dimension. Property Ownership History Between 1973 and 1974, the property was under the ownership of the Rodeffer Investments.15 Rodeffer Investments was a local land development company that was founded by Elmer Orion Rodeffer in 1967. During the 1960s and 1990s, the company purchased several investment properties and constructed both commercial and industrial -use buildings throughout the Orange County area.16 They were known for using the tilt -up concrete building method, which offered a fast, efficient, and economical way to build." From their main office in Newport Beach, the company designed custom office condominiums at affordable prices. By the 1980s, as the company expanded they established a partnership with the Hawthorne Development Company." Together they designed and constructed several commercial -use buildings in the Laguna Hills area.19 In 1981, the company was awarded the Construction Industry Award For Engineering Excellence for their work on an unidentified project in Sun City.20 Around this time, Rodeffer Investments served as the starting point for noted architect Mark Singer, who briefly worked at the company following his graduation from California State Los Angeles.21 Singer would go on to become an award -winning architect in Laguna and a fellow of the American Institute of Architect's.22 Over the years, the property was acquired by different s Los Angeles Times, May 2, 1974. 6 Ibid; Las Vegas Review -Journal, March 23, 1997. 17 Ibid. 1s Ibid. 19 The Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1981. 20 Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1981. Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2015. zz Mark Singer, Mark Singer Architect: Awards. Website. http://www.marksin�zerarchitects.com/awards. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 16 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# owners and offices were rented by several businesses. During historic research, little substantive information was found on the owners and occupants. Today, the property is under the ownership of the Orange County Transportation Authority and continues to serve as a commercial -use property. Table 2. Partial Property Ownership History Date Owner Source 1973-1974 Rodeffer Investments Building Permit 1978-1988 Edward Laboratory Building Permit 1988 Mobile Home Part of America Building Permit 2012 Equitable Garry Plaza Building Permit 2017-2019 Garry Owners, LLC Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 2021-present Orange County Transportation Authority Orange County Assessor's Office DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 17 of 27 B10. Significance (Continued from page 2): Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Local Register Criterion 1: Buildings, structures or objects with distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period, that exemplify a particular architectural style or design features. Under Criterion 1, the buildings do not qualify for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. Built in 1973, the buildings are basic, tilt -up construction, commercial -use structures that do not embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period. Like many of the commercial/light industrial -use buildings in the area, the structures have a more utilitarian appearance and rather than attractive were meant to be functional and affordable. As such, the buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically. For this reason, the buildings are not eligible under Criterion 1. Local Register Criterion 2: Works of notable architects, builders, or designers whose style influenced architectural development. The subject buildings were not identified as the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer. Therefore, the buildings are not eligible under Criterion 2. Local Register Criterion 3: Rare buildings, structures, or objects or original designs. Under Criterion 3, the subject buildings are not considered rare, but rather of common construction that utilized the tilt -up concrete building method. Tilt -up concrete construction was meant to be cost-effective, efficient, and functional, and as such is visible in several commercial and industrial -use properties in the area. The construction method was typically applied to one-story buildings but is not unusual to be used for structures as tall as four stories. For this reason, Urbana opines the 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue property not eligible under Criterion 3. Local Register Criterion 4: Buildings, structures, objects or sites of historical significance which include places (a) where important events occurred; (b) associated with famous people, original settlers, renowned organizations and businesses; (c) which were originally present when the city was founded; or (d) that served as important centers for political, social, economic, or cultural activity. The 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue commercial -use buildings do not have an association with events or persons that have made significant contributions to the local, regional, or cultural heritage of California. The buildings were not constructed during the initial development of Santa Ana and the property did not serve as an important center that contributed to the political, social, economic, or cultural activity of the city. The buildings are one of several commercial/ industrial -use buildings that were constructed during the 1970s and 1980s around the peripherals of the city. No specific information was identified to indicate that the property, in and of itself, exemplifies or represents a special element of Santa Ana's history. For this reason, the property is not eligible for designation under Criterion 4. Local Register Criterion 5. Sites of archaeological importance. Local Register Criterion 5 is typically applied to archaeological sites. Research and analysis of the 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue property is limited to above ground historic resources. Therefore, the property is not eligible under Local Register Criterion 5. Local Register Criterion 6: Buildings or structures that were connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Research does not indicate that the subject property was connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Therefore, the property is not eligible under Criterion 6. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 18 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES (CRHR) ELIGIBILTY REVIEW CRHR Criterion 1: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. This is equivalent to Local Register Criterion 4 and 6. Research does not indicate that the subject property qualifies for designation under Criterion 1. The subject property is located on Block 9, Lot 116 of the Irvine Subdivision. The property was initially improved in 1973 with the construction of three commercial -use buildings. The buildings were constructed at a time when the City of Santa Ana experienced increased development of suburban business parks and commercial office parks during the 1970s and 1980s. Most of these office complexes were speculative, and for profit endeavors intended to house numerous tenants. To encourage the industrial and commercial expansion around the peripherals of the city, surrounding lands, including portions of the 1887 Irvine Subdivision, were annexed into the city. The subject property is one of many commercial / industrial -use properties constructed in the area during this period. The property does not appear to be individually significant, nor did it make a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. For this reason, Urbana determined the property is not individually eligible under Criterion 1. CRHR Criterion 2: Association with the lives of persons important in California's past. This is equivalent to Local Register Criterion 4. Research does not indicate that the subject property qualifies for designation under Criterion 2. The 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue is not associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history. Therefore, the subject property does not qualify under Criterion 2. CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values. This is equivalent to Local Register Criterion 1, 2, and 3. Under Criterion 3, the building is not the work of a master and does not possess high artistic values and does not rise to a level beyond the ordinary. For this reason, Urbana determined the property is not individually eligible under Criterion 3. CRHR Criterion 4: Potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. This is equivalent to Local Register Criterion 5. The subject property is not eligible under Criterion 4 as it is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Integrity Integrity is the ability to physically convey significance. Evaluation of integrity must always be grounded in an understanding of a resource's physical features and how they relate to its significance. To retain historic integrity, a resource will possess several, and usually most of the following seven aspects of integrity: location, materials, design, setting, workmanship, feeling, and association. If it is determined that a resource is eligible for designation because it meets one or more of the adopted designation criteria, the integrity of the resource must be evaluated. Integrity is the ability to convey its significance. Only after the historic significance of the resource is fully established can the issue of integrity be addressed. The 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue property has not been found by Urbana to be individually eligible for designation under any of the criteria. Further integrity analysis is not merited. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 19 of 27 *1312. References (Continued from page 2): Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Ancestry.com. A variety of records were accessed online in July 2022 at: http://home.ancestry.com/. These include city directories, voter registration records, military records, and United States Census Data. Bowers Museum. Prequel to the Origin Story.•A Prehistory of Santa Ana's Foundation. Bowers Museum. Website, (November 6, 2019). Accessed July 2022. https://www.bowers.orci/index.php/collection/collection-bloci/prequel-to-the-origin-story-a-prehistory- of-the-santa-ana-s-foundation City of Santa Ana. Building Permits for 1700-1740 E. Garry AVenue. On file at the City of Santa Ana, Building Division. California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register.•A Copmarison. Technical Assistance Series 6. (1999). Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. City of Santa Ana Historic Preservation. Website: (n.d.). Accessed July 2022. https://www.santa-ana.orci/historic-preservation/. County of Orange, OCPWMaps 4. Website: (n.d.). Accessed July 2022. https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/. National Register Bulletin 16A. "How to Complete the National Register Registration Form." Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Services, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991. Nationwide Environmental Title Research. Historic Aerials. Website, (1999). Accessed July 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/. Office of Historic Preservation. "Instruction for Recording Historical Resources." Sacramento: March 1995. Reed, A. Roberta. Images ofAmerica: Santa Ana. SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011. Santa Ana and Orange County Directories, 1905-1931. University of California Santa Barbara Library. Frame Finder. Website (n.d.). Accessed July 2022. https:Hmil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/FrameFinder/. U.S. Department of the Interior. Earth Explorer. Website (n.d.) Accessed July 2022. https:Hearthexplorer.usgs.gov/. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State Q California -The Resources Agency P mar # DEPARTMENT OFPARKS AND RECREATION Hms CONTINUATION SHEET TnommW I Resource Name or ■170 q7 0 E. Gary Avenue Page 2 O 2 Assessor Parcel Map 120 ,» . � \§\ Ace_. « % � \ � / \ . §\% ZZ IT ¥71)a&§ Source: assessor's Map Book]a% Count of Orange assessor's Office. DP 5 3 m% o m *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 21 of 27 Historic Aerials 41 , rai s 1� F�� �7 7_ +� Primary# HRI# Trinomial# 1972 aerial of the subject property and surrounding area. No structures are visible on the parcel. Source: Earth Explorer DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 22 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# I March 1973 aerial of the evaluated property and surrounding area. No structures are visible on the property. The property was not improved until November of 1973. Source: Frame Finder, UC Santa Barbara Library. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 23 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# ! 1 q! "tc• it -- '� '�� '' _ — . F` ~\ akW - '}, �! % IOF l' r L o T 1974 aerial of the evaluated property and the surrounding area. The buildings continue to appear in their original footprint. Source: Frame Finder, UC Santa Barbara Library. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 24 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# 2007 aerial of the evaluated property and the surrounding area. The buildings continue to appear in their original footprint. Source: Frame Finder, UC Santa Barbara Library. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial# Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 25 of 27 Newspaper and Genealogical Database Search Results for Owners and Occupant ENFIDENT--Emery R. Nadosdy, project mano- r of new Rodeffer Investments building at New- k Center, shows his confidence in lift -slab type Construction as he kneels beneath 800-tan con- crete slab being raised into position as floor of building's top story, Three upper floors will we 800 tons each, the first, 1,000 tons. Hydraulic equipment raised floor to this position in two hours. Times photo by Hat Schulz, The subject property was initially improved in 1973 by the Rodeffer Investment Company. The company was known for utilizing the tilt -up concrete method of construction, which offered a fast, efficient, and economical way to build Source: Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1971. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 26 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Office Condos on Market in Santa Ana Completion is scheduled Friday at Garry Plaza Office Park, 1800-1320 E. Garry St., Santa Ana, a $7.25- million office condominium project which of- fers 34 suites ranging from 412 to 2,- 000 square feet in size. Prices range from $47,000 to $235, - 000 and immediate move -ins are available; some buyers have occupied their premises, according to the developer, Rodeffer Investments. At midweek, 37 suites had been sold. The developer offers financing with down payments of 15% to 25%. Fur- nished and decorated model offices are open daily from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In addition to 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Rodeffer Investments also constructed the 1800-1820 E. Garry Avenue buildings located directly east of the property. Source: LosAngeies Times, Feb 10, 1980. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Resource Name or #: 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue Page 27 of 27 Primary# HRI# Trinomial# Office Condo Project Opens in Laguna Hills South Pointe I, a $5-million, 30,33S- square- foot joint venture development of Hawthorne Development Co. and Rodeffer Investments of Santa Ana, has opened in Laguna Hills with 36 office condominiums starting at $65,250. Scheduled for completion Aug. 1, the air-conditioned units range in size from 450 to 2,100 square feet. The downstairs larger units each have a private restroom, coffee bars, parquet floor entry and storage area. Marc Dale Engineering and Stewart White Design designed the project, at 23276 South Pointe Drive. During the 1980s, as the company continued to grow, they established a partnership with local building company, Hawthorne Development Co., and constructed several custom commercial -use buildings primarily in the Laguna Hills area. Source: Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1981. DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum 1 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Attn: Konnie Dobreva, EPD Solutions, Inc. Attachments Attachment 2. Preparer Qualifications URBAN PLANNING - HISTORIC PRESERVATION • HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY www.urbonapre.ser-vat;on.com PRISERNINN & PLANNING1( Alexia Landa, BA Historian + Archaeologist alexia@urbanapreservation.com Alexia Landa is a Veteran of the United States Navy having served from 2007-2012, including deployments in the Middle East. For the USN, she served as an Aircrew Survival Equipmentman. In this capacity she inspected aircraft and aircrew life-support equipment for evidence of abuse, damage, or malfunction. She holds a Bachelor of Arts (double major) in History and Anthropology from San Diego State University. Prior to joining Urbana, Alexia served as an Archaeological Specialist forthe California Department of Parks and Recreation Southern Service Center where she performed archaeological monitoring and site assessment activities for a variety of project types including State Parkfacility improvements, historic building maintenance, and municipal water and sewer system repair and replacement. She meets The Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards in the discipline of History. At Urbana Alexia leads field survey and monitoring activities, conducts contextual and site -specific research, prepares historic context statements, and authors technical reports and site records. Ms. Landa's passion for history is demonstrated through her volunteer work with the Museum of Man, the San Diego Museum of Natural History, and as a member of the Board of Directors for the San Diego County Archaeological Society. PROJECT EXPERIENCE In -Progress Glen Canyon National Park Service Post 1955 Housing Survey and MPDF, Page, AZ 2021 351 Watson St. Historic Evaluation; Monterey, CA 2018-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report Ivanpah-Control Project, Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, CA 2021 Transmission Line Rating & Remediation Project, Ivanpah Control Line, Archival Research Package, Southern California Edison, Southern CA 2020-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report Eldorado -Pisgah-Lugo Project, San Bernardino County, California and Clark County, Nevada 2021 City of Escondido Delisting and Re-evaluation, 340 Waverly Place, San Diego, CA 2021 City of Monrovia Historia Resource Analysis Report, 213-217 Novice Lane, Monrovia, CA 2021 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 710 loth Street, Coronado, CA 2021 City of San Diego Historic Property Survey Report, 3167 Market Street, San Diego, CA 2021 Village of Fallbrook DPR Evaluation, 129 S. Vine Street, Fallbrook, CA 2021 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 202 B Street- 1216 2"d Street, Coronado, CA 2021 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 136 F Avenue, Coronado, CA 2021 American Silk Factors Mill Historic Resource Analysis Report, 528 N. Mission Road, San Marcos, CA 2021 Irwindale DPR Evaluation, 5265 N 4th Street, Los Angeles, California 2021 East Gilman Channel Mitigation Historic American Engineering Record, Banning, California To(( free : 16441 UR6ANA 3 1844) 872-2623 Northern California 248 3rd Street, #841 Oakland, CA 94607 Southern Colifarnia 7705 E1 Cajon 814, # 1 Lo Mesa, CA 91942 Southwesl Region 428 E. Thunderbird Rd., #419 Phoenix, A7 85022 Mountain Region 280 W. Kogy Blvd.. #0-186 Bozeman, Mf59715 Midwest Region 2400 E. Main St, # 103-218 St. Charles, Q 60174 EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts - History and Anthropology School of Arts and Letters, California State University, San Diego PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Historian + Archaeologist: Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (San Diego) 2o18 — present Field Archaeologist / Historian: Loveless & Linton, Inc. Cultural Preservation & Archaeology (San Diego) 2017-2019 Archaeological Project Leader: California State Parks, Southern Service Center (San Diego) 2017-present Field Archaeologist: PanGIS, Inc. (San Diego) 2017 Field Archaeologist: Channel Islands National Parks Services (Santa Rosa) 2017 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Society of California Archaeology Board Member: San Diego County Archaeological Society Society of Architectural Historians URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY www.urbonapre.ser-vat;on.com PRISERNINN & PLANNING1( Alexia Landa, BA Historian + Archaeologist alexia@urbanapreservation.com 2021 Getchell Ranch Historic American Building Survey, 4055 Lytle Creek Road, Fontana, California. 2020 Jurupa Valley Mira Loma Quartermaster Depot Historic Resource Analysis Report, Riverside County, CA 2020 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 457 E Avenue, Coronado, CA 2020 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 518 Adella Lane, Coronado, CA 2020 Rancho Miramonte Project Historic Property Survey Report, Chino, CA 2020 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 800 11t Street, Coronado, CA 2020 City of Coronado Determination of Historic Significance, 610 loth Street, Coronado, CA 2020 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report Kern River to Los Angeles Project, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California 2020 Even Hewes Highway / Coyote Wash Bridge Historic Property Survey Report, Imperial County, California 2019-2020 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report Control -Silver Peak Transmission Corridor, Inyo and Mono Counties, California 2019 Lindsay Substation and Bliss -Lindsay 66kV Sub -Transmission Line Historic Property Survey Report, Lindsay, CA 2019 Pedley Powerhouse Historic Property Survey Report, Norco, California 2017-2019 Crew Chief / Archaeological Monitor for linear trench utility excavations, - prepared daily reporting, photo documentation, and artifact recordation; facilitate contractor and crew communications. 2017 Site excavation, artifact identification, screening, and lab analysis for ancient paleocoastal site at Santa Rosa Island within Channel Islands National Park 2017-2020 Archaeological Project Leader for California State Parks projects in San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo Counties. Toff free : (8441 UR6ANA 3 1844) 872-2623 Northern California 248 3rd Street, #841 Ookland, CA 94607 Southern California 7705 E1 Cajon Blvd., # 1 Lo Mesa, CA 91942 Southwest Region 428 E. Thunderbird Rd., #419 Phoenix, AZ 85022 Mountain Region 280 W. Kogy Blvd., #0-186 Bozeman, MT 59775 Midwest Region 2400 E. Main 5t., # 103-218 5t. Chorles, IL 60174 ACTIVITIES $ HONORS SDSU School of Arts and Letters, Dean's List SDSU Anthropology Graduate Students Association Undergraduate Writing Contest,sst Place Winner, 2o16 SDSU Spencer Lee Rogers Alumni Award Nominee, 2017 URBAN PLANNING ■ HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY ■ ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY www.urbonapre.ser-vat;orp.com PRISERNION & PIANNINGLL{ Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner wendy@urbanapreservation.com Founding Principal, WendyL. Tinsleyeecker, RPH, AICP, brings an expert background in American history, architecture, and urban planning, with a particular emphasis on issues relating to historic preservation. Her experience includes extensive historical resources survey work, design review under The Secretaryof the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, single -site historic property research and documentation, and practice in municipal regulatory planning and cultural resources compliance issues including code compliance, revision and review, CEQA, NEPA, and Section 1o6 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As a preservation -planning consultant she participates in the development and administration of local land use regulations, policies, programs and projects, prepares reports involving research and analysis of various planning issues, conducts site -specific project and design review; and facilitates project coordination between contractors, architects, developers, citizens and other stakeholders. Wendy meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of History and Architectural History and the draft standards established for Historic Preservation and Land Use/Community Planning. She is included on the California Council for the Promotion of History's Register of Professional Historians and also maintains professional certification in the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Wendy is a co-author and editor of the AICP Certified Urban Designer Exam Study Guide (Vi.o) released in March 2o16. From 2013 forward she has provided professional training to AICP exam applicants as part of the American Planning Association California Chapter — San Diego Section annual exam training program. Wendy has assisted municipalities, utility providers, and lead agencies in preservation planning program development and implementation efforts. She regularly consults for private and agency applicants on historical resource and historic property analysis for discretionary projects and undertakings pursuant to Section 3.o6 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit proposals at National Register listed or eligible properties, which are subject to review by the State Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service. She was the author / facilitator and lead historic preservation consultant for the City of Chula Vista's award -winning Municipal Preservation Planning Program. She authored the Historic Preservation Element for the City of La Mesa's award winning 2011 / 203o General Plan update process. She provides survey, architectural history, context development, programmatic agreement, and historic preservation planning consulting services for the Southern California Edison Company including preparation of a programmatic guide for the treatment of all historic -era properties in the company's 55,000 square mile service territory. She served as the lead Architectural Historian for the City and County of Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project's Kako'o (Section 1o6 Programmatic Agreement Program manager) consultant team. Wendy's professional analysis and determinations are reviewed for compliance and concurrence by numerous municipalities, and state and federal agencies including the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the California Public Utilities Commission, the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Her current interests include facilitating approvals for brick and mortar construction and building rehabilitation projects, and working with community -based organizations that emphasize public participation while striving forthe improvement of the built environment through good urban and architectural design and associated social programs. Toll free; 18441 URBANA 3 1844) 872-2623 Northern California 248 3rd Strael, #841 Ookland, CA 94607 Southern California 7705 El Cajon Blvd., # 1 Lo Mesa, CA 91942 Soulhweso Region 428 E. Thunderbird Rd., #419 Phoenix, A7 85022 Mountain Region 280 W. Kogy Blvd.. #0-186 Bozeman, MT 597T5 Midwest Region 2400 E. Main St., # 103-218 St. Charles, lL 60174 EDUCATION Master of City Planning, Preservation & Urban Design Emphasis San Diego State University Bachelor of Arts — History San Diego State University REGISTRATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners (#022838) Register of Professional Historians (#612) EXPERIENCE 2005-present: Founding Principal Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC 2012-present: Faculty Lecturer San Diego State University City Planning Graduate Program 2oo6-2017: Faculty Instructor University of California, San Diego Urban Planning & Development Program 2002-2005: Historian / Planner Architectural Resources Group 2001-2002: Historian / Planner Historic Research Services 2000-2oo1: Historian Office of Marie Burke Lia, Esq. 1996-1999: Asst. Coordinator + Researcher: SHPO/CHRIS South Coastal Information Center URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING `C PROJECT EXPERIENCE* In -Progress Post Rock Resources of Kansas National Register Nominations; Lincoln, Mitchell, Rush, and Russell Counties, KS. In -Progress USA CESanta Fe Dam Evaluation, Los Angeles, CA. 2021 City of Laguna Beach Preservation 1o1 Workshop — Staff Training, Laguna Beach, CA. 2021 Post Rock Resources of Kansas Survey and MPDF; Lincoln, Mitchell, Rush, and Russell Counties, KS. 2021 Historic Resource Research Report: 3800 University Ave; San Diego, CA. 2021 86o Muender Ave Historic Integrity Memo; Sunnyvale, CA. 2021 Lafayette Hotel Rehabilitation & Tax Credit Consulting; San Diego, CA. 2021 Old Tavern Rehabilitation & Tax Credit Consulting; Sacramento, CA. 2021 Historic Resource Research Report: 4070-72 Georgia Street; San Diego, CA. 2021 Transmission Line Rating & Remediation Project, Ivanpah Control Line, Archival Research Package, Southern California Edison, Southern California. 2021 528 E. Mission Road Historic Resource Analysis Report; San Marcos, CA. 2021 4oSS Lytle Street — Getchell Ranch / The Stone House Historic American Building Record (NABS) Level 11 Documentation, Fontana, CA. 2021 Norco Egg Ranch Historic American Building Record (HABS) Level 11 Documentation, Norco, CA. 2021 East Gilman Channel Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) & Monument Consulting, Banning, CA. 2021 5z65 N. 4th Street Historical Resource Summary; Irwindale, CA. 2021 Historic Resource Analysis Report: 3611 Hyacinth Drive Historic Designation Package, San Diego, CA. 2021 Historic Resource Analysis Report: 2675 Clove Street Historic Designation Package, San Diego, CA. 2021 Historic Resource Analysis Report: 83o1 La Mesa Blvd Historic Assessment; La Mesa, CA. 2021 1033 Pandora Drive Historic Designation; La Mesa, CA. 2021 7345 Remley Place Mills Act Application and Rehabilitation Plan, San Diego, CA. 2021 3629 Front St Mills Act Application and Rehabilitation Plan, San Diego, CA. 2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Ivanpah-Control Transmission Corridor, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, 1135 Devonshire Drive, San Diego, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation Package, 3575 Via Flores, San Diego, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Analysis Report and CA DPR Forms, Archibald and Schaefer RV Park, City of Ontario, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, 2275 Evergreen Street, San Diego, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, 9434 Sierra Vista Drive, La Mesa, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Analysis Report: CEQA Evaluation and CA DPR Forms, Mira Loma Quartermaster Depot, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, lurupa Valley, CA. 2020 Historical Resource Evaluation Memorandum & CA DPR Forms, Ontario RV Storage Mitigated Negative Declaration, Ontario, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation 1610 Santa Barbara Street, San Diego, CA. 2020 Red Fox Room Retroactive Review, JCG Development, San Diego, CA. wendy@urbanapreservation.com BOARDS + COMMITTEES Chair / Immediate Past Chair: American Planning Association National Urban Design & Preservation Division, 04/2012-12/2o16 Founder + Volunteer Executive Director / Ex—Officio Director: Built Environment Education Program (BEEP) San Diego, 2oo8-2015 Education Committee Member: California Preservation Foundation, 04/2012-04/2014 Vice -Chair+ Newsletter Editor: APA National Urban Design & Preservation Division, 01/2010-03/2012 Director & Education Chair: San Diego Architectural Foundation, 11/2oo8- 2011 Appointed Public Member: City of San Diego Historical Resources Board Incentives Subcommittee, o8/2oo8- 02/2010 Advisor/Member— UCSD Extension Advisory Group Urban Planning & Development Certificate Program, 2007 forward Founding President —Jack London District Association, 2005-2oo6 SELECT AWARDS 2o16 - Award of Excellence for Preservation Advancement - City of San Diego Historical Resources Board (recognized for Urbana's preservation planning study forthe San Diego State Normal School Campus & San Diego City Schools Historic District). 2014 - American Planning Association (APA) San Diego Chapter— Planning Agency Award for preparation of La Mesa 203o General Plan. *Historic Preservation Element prepared by WLTB / Urbana. URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C 2020 Rancho Miramonte Section so6 Evaluation: Historic Property Survey Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chino, CA. zozo Historic Resource Technical Report: 2956 Roosevelt Street, Sterling Corporation, Carlsbad, CA. zozo Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, 435o Nabal Drive, La Mesa, CA. zozo 463o Date Street Historic Landmark Nomination, La Mesa, CA. zozo Avo Theater Rehabilitation Tax Credit Consulting, JCG Development, Vista, CA. zozo Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Kern River to Los Angeles Transmission Corridor, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, 1025 Devonshire Drive, San Diego, CA. 2020 Historic Resource Research Report: Historic Designation & Mills Act Package, "The Muse" 1020 Prospect Street, La Jolla, CA. 2020 Historic District Nomination Package: Culverwell and Taggarts, City of San Diego, CA. 2020 Historic District Nomination Package, Arizona Street Tract, Park Villas Subdivision, City of San Diego, CA. 2020 Historical Resource Analysis Report, Moiola School, Fountain Valley, CA. 2020 Historical Resource Survey, Proposed Merrill Commerce Center Specific Plan, Ontario, CA. 2020 Historic Property Survey Report : Evan Hewes Highway and Bridge Evaluation, Imperial County, CA. 2020 Historical Resource Analysis Report: Historic Designation and Mills Act Application 552 Rushville Street, San Diego, CA. 2019 Historic Context and Preservation Element Historical Resource Analysis Report/ Historic Property Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company Lindsay Substation and Bliss -Lindsay 66kV Sub -Transmission Line. 2019 To Kalon Vineyard / Robert Mondavi Winery Patent Litigation Expert Witness Consulting, Oakville, CA. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report, Vic Braden Tennis College, 23333 Ave La Caza, Coto De Caza, CA. 2019 Church of God in Christ Bulletin 58o Package. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report, 7407 Alvarado Road, La Mesa, CA. 2019 City of Laguna Beach Preservation Ordinance and Program Consulting. 2019 Historic Resource Research Report and Conditions Consulting, 8445 Avenida de las Ondas, La Jolla, CA. 2019 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Control -Silver Peak Transmission Corridor, Historic - Era Built Environment Survey Report. 2019 Southern California Edison Catalina Island Historic -Era Water System Management Program, Catalina Island, CA. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report/Historic Property Survey Report, Southern California Edison Catalina Island Wrigley Pipeline Project, Catalina Island, CA. 2019 Retroactive Historical Resource Research Report, 31sr Street, San Diego, CA. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report / Historic Property Survey Report Southern California Edison Pedley Powerhouse Complex, Norco, California. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report/Historic Property Survey Report Southern California Edison Company Eastern Sierras Transmission System, Mono County and Inyo County, California. wendy@urbanapreservation.com RELATED EXPERIENCE Member: County of San Diego Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, 09/2o16 forward Director+ Civic Improvement Chair, Grossmont-Mt. Helix Improvement Association, o8/2oi6 forward Mentor: San Diego State University Aztec Mentor Program, Spring 2o16 Cohort Co -Author/ Editor: AICP Certified Urban Designer Exam Study Guide, Version i.o (released March 2o16) AICP Exam Course Speaker: California Chapter, San Diego Section, (annually) 02/2013-present Retreat Facilitator: Beautiful Pacific Beach, Annual Board of Directors Retreat, (annually) 2o16-present Invited Panel Speaker: Density and Design: The Future of Housing in San Diego, American Planning Association San Diego Section, San Diego, 09/201.7 Invited Speaker: Building Community and Character— Preservation is Place; ssr Annual Historic Preservation Conference Nebraska State Office of Historic Preserva tion, Omaha (NE), o6/2013 Panel Speaker: Preservation Toolkitfor Small Cities, American Planning Association California Chapter Conference, 10/2012 Invited Speaker: Preliminary Findings — The Status of Preservation Planning Regulatory Programs in the San Diego Region - 2012, Association of Environmental Professionals San Diego Chapter September Luncheon, 09/2012 URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C 2019 Historical Resource Research Report, 3629 Front Street, San Diego, CA. 2019 Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management — California, the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California Utility Providers, and the California Office of Historic Preservation, Regarding the Identification, Evaluation, Management, and Exemption of Historic -Era Electrical Infrastructure Facilities in the State of California. 2019 City of San Diego Clairemont Community Plan Update, Historic Context and Preservation Element. 2019 Historic Site Report, 10446 Russell Road, La Mesa, CA. 2019 City of Coronado, As -Needed Historic Research Consulting, Coronado, CA. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report, 4250-52 Cleveland Ave, San Diego, CA. 2018 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Control -Silver Peak Transmission Corridor, Historic - Era Built Environment Survey Report — Phase 1 Desk Survey. 2o18 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Control-Haiwee Transmission Corridor, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report— Phase 1 Desk Survey. 2oi8 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program ICKI Transmission Corridor, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report — Phase 1 Desk Survey. 2o18 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Eldorado -Lugo -Pisgah Transmission Corridor, Historic - Era Built Environment Survey Report — Phase 1 Desk Survey. 2o18 City of San Diego Park Boulevard Residential Historic District Historic Context Statement and Nomination Package. 2o18 California Department of General Services, Metropolitan State Hospital Project Historical Resource Analysis Report. 2o18 City of San Juan Capistrano, River Street Marketplace Historical Resource Analysis Report. 2o18 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Kern River to Los Angeles Transmission Corridor, Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report — Phase 1 Desk Survey. 2017 Historic Site Designation Package, Wexler House 1o88 Sierra Vista Avenue, La Mesa, California. 2017 Nelson -Sloan Otay Rock Plant Property, Chula Vista, California 9191o. 2017 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, California, Tract Map Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Report. 2017 4 Greenwood Common (Berkeley Landmark No. 125) Mills Act Application Package, Berkeley, CA. 2017 Historical Resource Analysis Report, 1201 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California. 2017 Design Review Analysis and Historical Resource Research Report, 4884 Marlborough Avenue, San Diego, California. 2017 Historical Resource Analysis Report/Historic Property Survey Report, SCE MacNeil Substation, Burbank, California. 2017 Peer Review Statement, 400 S. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California. 2017 4617-4619 and 4621-4625 Park Boulevard, San Diego, California, Historical Resource Technical Report. 2017 Historical Resource Research Report, 70717th Street, San Diego, California. 2017 So64 Lotus Street, San Diego, California, Historical Resource Technical Report. 2017 Historical Resource Technical Report, 55o Sicard Street, San Diego, California. wendy@urbanapreservation.com SELECT AWARDS (CONT.) 2013—American Planning Association National Division Executive Committee Recipient — Division Achievement Award (recognized for professional development webinars on historic preservation, urban design, and development topics developed on behalf of the APA Urban Design & Preservation Division). 2012 - American Association of Environmental Professionals San Diego Chapter— Outstanding Planning Document Award for preparation of the City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program & Ordinance. *Historic Preservation Ordinance& Program prepared by WLTB / Urbana. 2012 - American Planning Association National Division Executive Committee Recipient —Education Excellence Award (recognized for education efforts on behalf of the APA Urban Design & Preservation Division). 2011- American Planning Association National Division Executive Committee Recipient Branding Award (recognized for visibility, outreach, and education efforts on behalf of the APA Urban Design & Preservation Division). 2010 Award of Excellence in Education City of San Diego City Planning & Community Investment Department Historical Resources Board (recognized for the Built Environment Education Program developed for the San Diego Architectural Foundation / BEEP San Diego). 2009 - San Diego Public Library Foundation / Friends of the San Diego Public Library 2oo8-2009 Chapter Volunteer Award, University Heights Branch (recognized for preservation planning work at the historic San Diego State Normal College campus). URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C 2017 Historic Landmark Designation Package, 9415-9425 Eldorado Lane, La Mesa, California. 2017 6o35 University Avenue, San Diego, California, Historical Resource Technical Report. 2o16 Expert Witness Consulting, Bernati Ticino Trust v. City of San Diego 2o16 4365-4369 Ohio Street, San Diego, California, Historical Resource Technical Report. 2o16 4505 Park Boulevard, San Diego California, Historical Resource Technical Report. 2o16 Designation and Mills Act Rehabilitation Reporting and Consulting for the Edwin K. Hurlbert House, 2930 Chatsworth Boulevard, San Diego, CA. 2o16 NHPA Section 1o6 Historic Property Analysis and Findings of Effect Statement for the Southern California Yeshiva High School, San Diego, CA. 2o16 Peak Valley Solar Farm CEQA Cultural Resources Analysis (Historical Resources, Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources), San Bernardino County, CA. September 2o16 City of Oceanside/Caltrans, Coast Highway (Hill Street) Bridge over the San Luis Rey River Replacement Project Historical Resources Evaluation Report, Oceanside, CA. August 2o16 Historical Resource Technical Report —715 Muirlands Vista Way, La Jolla, CA. June 2o16 Class III Cultural Resources Inventory/NRHP Eligibility Determination, SCE Eldorado SookV Transmission System, California, Arizona, Nevada. June 2o16 Casa de las Flores Property Carriage House/Garage Building, Historical Resource Analysis Report, Chula Vista, CA. May 2o16 Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) No. CA-167-0 — Southern California Edison Company Big Creek Hydroelectric System Vincent 22okV Transmission Line, Kern, Fresno, and Los Angeles Counties. May 2o16 San Diego Gas & Electric Company Eastern Division Property Eligibility Review Memo, El Cajon, CA. March 2oi6 Historical Resource Review-1347-1349 Locust Street, Walnut Creek, CA. March 2o16 City of La Mesa Collier Park NHPA Section 1o6 Review, La Mesa, CA. March 2o16 Redwood Solar Farm 4 CEQA Cultural Resources Analysis (Historical Resources, Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources), Kern County, CA. March 2o16 City of La Mesa Vista La Mesa Park NHPA Section 1o6 Review, La Mesa, CA. February 2o16 City of Chula Vista Third Avenue Community Character+ Business Improvement Guidelines. February 2o16 City of San Diego HRB No. 461 /Anderson House, San Diego County Historic Site Designation and Mills Act Rehabilitation Consulting, 3841 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, CA. January 2oi6 Historic American Landscapes Survey(HALS) No. CA-122 — Collier Park, La Mesa, CA. December 2015 Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) No. CA -2138 — Southern California Edison Company Substations: Monumental Type, Santa Barbara, Kern, Fresno, and Los Angeles Counties. December 2015 Pacific Gas & Electric Company South of Palermo Project Historical Resource Analysis Report/ Historic Property Survey Report. November 2015 Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) No. CA-167-N—Amendment to Southern California Edison Company Big Creek Hydroelectric System East & West Transmission Line. November 2o15 Designation and Mills Act Rehabilitation Reporting and Consulting for the Alexander Schreiber Spec House No. 1 / Payne House, 1429 Dale Street, San Diego, CA. wendy@urbanapreservation.com RELATED EXPERIENCE (CONT.) Attendee: National Charrette Institute, Introduction to Dynamic Planning (Level 1 NCI Charrette Manager Certification Training), San Diego (CA) 10/2003 Attendee: CA Preservation Foundation, Incentives for Historic Preservation Projects, Berkeley (CA) 09/2003 Attendee: University of Southern CA, Preservation Planning & Law, Los Angeles (CA) 07/2003 Attendee: League of CA Cities, Smart Growth Zoning Codes, Lodi (CA)12/2002 Invited Participant: Second Natures, Redefining the Los Angeles Riverfront, Los Angeles (CA) 01/2002 (2-Day Planning & Design Charrette hosted by MOCA & The Geffen) Selected Smart Growth Researcher: San Diego State University Foundation & City Planning Graduate Program, Dr. Roger Caves, os/Zoos — o8/2001(Grant Topic: Planning for Sprawl in the U.S) Attendee: Section 1o6 An Introductory Course, National Preservation Institute, San Francisco (CA) 04/1999 COURSES CREATED & TAUGHT BUSA 4o687 - Historic Preservation Planning (UCSD 2oo6-2012) BUSA 40515 - Fundamentals of City Planning (UCSD 2007) BUSA 40748 - Foundations of Urban Planning & The Built Environment (UCSD 2009-2012) BUSA 40749 - Functions & Processes of City Planning (UCSD 2011-2012) ART 40436 - American Architectural History I & II (UCSD 2oo8-2014) CP 670 - History of Urban Planning (SDSU 2012) URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C October 2015 Designation and Mills Act Rehabilitation Reporting and Consulting for the Florence Palmer Spec. House 11 of lll, 35o Fern Glen, San Diego, CA. May 2015 Historic -era Electrical Infrastructure Management Program: A Program for the Identification, Review, Exemption, and Treatment of Generating Facilities, Transmission Lines, Sub -transmission Lines, Distribution Lines, and Substations within the Southern California Edison Company's Service Territory. March 2015 Class 111 Cultural Resources Inventoryfor Southern California Edison's Coolwater-Lugo Transmission Project, San Bernardino County, California — Volume 1: Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report. 2014-2015 Los Angeles Regional Intercommunications System NHPA Section 1o6 Assessment of 125 sites located throughout Los Angeles County. 2014 Historic Preservation and Urban Planning Expert Witness, Brandon Milan v. City of San Diego, State of California Superior Court Case No. 37-2013- 00067039-CU-EI-CTL. 2013-2014 Historic Preservation and Urban Planning Expert Witness, Edward Valerio v. City of San Diego, U.S.D.C. Case No. 12C1200W (WMC) November 2014 Historic -Era Built Environment Survey Report, NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Evaluations, and Concurrence Consulting for proposed Coolwater Lugo Transmission Project (approx. Zoo built environment sites over 13 segments in the vicinity of Apple Valley, Barstow, and Hesperia, California). November 2014 Herald Examiner Building, 11o1-1139 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA, Historic Preservation Certification Application: Part 1— Determination of Eligibility — Draft Submittal. November 2014 Cecil Hotel Building, 640 Main Street, Los Angeles, CA, Historic Preservation Certification Application: Part 1— Determination of Eligibility— Draft Submittal. November 2014 Cecil Hotel Building, 640 Main Street, Los Angeles, CA, City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Application Package — Draft Submittal. November 2014 Historic -Era Electrical Infrastructure Management Program: A Program for the Identification, Review, Exemption, and Treatment of Generating Facilities, Transmission Lines, Sub -transmission Lines, Distribution Lines, and Substations within the SCE Service Territory. October 2014 Commercial Exchange Building, 416 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA, Historic Preservation Certification Application: Part 2 — Description of Rehabilitation — Draft Submittal. October 2014 NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Review, SCE Lighthipe and Laguna Bell Substations, Long Beach and Commerce, California. October 2014 NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Review, SCE Eagle Rock Substation, Los Angeles, California. October 2014 NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Review, SCE Colton Substation, Colton, California. September 2014 City and County of Honolulu Little Makalapa National Register of Historic Places Nomination Peer Review. September 2014 City and County of Honolulu Big Makalapa National Register of Historic Places Nomination Peer Review. September 2014 Sudberry Properties Strawberry Fields Historic Cultural Landscape Analysis Report, Chula Vista, CA. July 2014 Friday Morning Club Building, 938 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, CA, Historic Preservation Certification Application: Part 2 — Description of Rehabilitation — Draft Submittal. May 2014 Commercial Club of Southern California Building/Case Hotel Part 2 Determination of Eligibility, Los Angeles, CA. May 2014 City and County of Fresno Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility — Plant 2 NHPA Section 1o6 and CEQA Historical Resource Assessment. wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C April 2014 City and County of Honolulu Aloha Stadium Station Project Treatment Plan Peer Review, Honolulu, CA. April 2014 Redwood Solar Farm Historic Property Survey/Historical Resource Report, Kern County, CA. April 2014 4`h@ Broadway EIR Mitigated Negative Declaration — Historical Resource Assessment Report, Los Angeles, CA March 2014 Commercial Club of Southern California Building/Case Hotel Part 1 Determination of Eligibility, Los Angeles, CA. February 2014 Commercial Club of Southern California Building/Case Hotel Historic Cultural Monument Application, Los Angeles, CA. January 2014 156o S. Escondido Boulevard NHPA Section 1o6 Review and Concurrence Consulting. November 2013 Consulting for Two Historic House Relocations to the City of San Diego Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney's Office. September 2013 Caltrans Section 1o6 Historic Property and CEQA Historical Resource Survey —Gilbert Street, Santa Ana, CA. October 2013 NHPA Section 1o6 Historic Property and CEQA Historical Resource Survey Report, Proposed Coolwater Lugo Transmission Project. June 2013 Historic Agricultural Landscapes of Visalia and Tulare County electronic book and exhibit— Tulare County Museum of Farm Labor and Agriculture, Visalia, CA January 2013 National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level 11 Documentation (Large Format Negative Photography & Narrative) — Big Creek Hydroelectric System East & West Transmission Line, Fresno to Los Angeles, CA January 2013 Historical and Architectural Eligibility Evaluation of Delano Substation Complex. October 2012 Historical and Architectural Eligibility Evaluations of the Southern California Edison Company Historic -Era Casitas, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Santa Clara, and Goleta Substations October 2012 City and County of San Francisco, 2419-2435 Lombard Street Historical Resource Evaluation Report. 2011-2013 Historic Preservation Expert Witness, Academy of Our Lady of Peace v. City of San Diego, U.S.D.C. Case No. 09CV0962 WQH (MDD) In -process San Diego Municipal Anglers Building Historical Resource Designation Report, San Diego, CA July 2012 National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level 11 Documentation (Large Format Negative Photography & Narrative) — SCE San Joaquin Cross Valley Loop Project, Visalia, CA June 2012 Historic Structure Report - Casa Peralta, 384 West Estudillo Avenue, San Leandro, CA June 2012 County of San Diego Historic Site Designation Report, John N. Mortenson's Hines Residence, Mt. Helix, CA April 2012 NHPA Section 1o6 Review, Lodi Municipal Stadium, Lodi, CA March 2012 Federal Rehabilitation Certification Application — Part Request for Certification of Completed Work— Imig Manor/Lafayette Hotel, 2223 El Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, CA February 2012 National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Imig Manor/Lafayette Hotel, 2223 El Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, CA February 2012 Sequoia National Forest Electric Power Conveyance Systems NRHP Eligibility Evaluations, Tulare County, CA January 2012 NHPA Section 1o6 Review, La Mesa Youth Center, La Mesa, CA wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING «C December 2011 City of La Mesa 2012 General Plan Update — 2o3o Historic Preservation Element, La Mesa, CA December 2011 Crown City Medical Center EIR Historical Resource Initial Study, Pasadena, CA November 2o11 NHPA Section 1o6 Review, 447o Acacia Avenue, La Mesa, CA September 2o11 Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District Vincent 22okV Transmission Line NRHP Eligibility Evaluation and Historic Property Treatment Plan. July 2011 Historic -Era Electric Power Conveyance Systems Programmatic Agreement (SCE, BLM, & CA, NV SHPO) (Context, Typology, Identification, Integrity Qualifications, & Treatment Processes) June 2011 Aesthetic impact Analysis Report, Hollywoodland Historic Rock Retaining Walls, Los Angeles, CA April 2011 Kern River— Los Angeles 6o / 66kV Transmission Line NRHP Eligibility Evaluation, Kern & L.A. Counties December 2oio Historic Structure Report - Linda Vista Federal Defense Housing Project Tenant Activity Building, San Diego, CA October 2010 City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, Historic Property/Historical Resource Analysis Report of the Linda Vista Federal Defense Housing Project Tenant Activity Building, San Diego, CA November 2olo Historic Designation Report, Burt F, Raynes Residence, 299 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, CA August 2010 Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Antelope -Vincent No. 1 zzokV Transmission Line NRHP/CRHR Review July 2010 Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Rosamond Substation NRHP/CRHR Review, Montebello, California July 2010 Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Antelope -Mesa 22okV Transmission Line NRHP/CRHR Review June 2010 Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Chino -Mesa 22okV Transmission Line NRHP/CRHR Review June 2010 Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Chino Substation NRHP/CRHR Review, Chino, California April 2010 Historical Resource Analysis Report, Hollywoodland Historic Rock Retaining Walls, Los Angeles, CA March 2010 Imig Manor/Lafayette Hotel Part 2 2o% Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Application January 2010 CEQA Historical Resource Analysis Report, 2629 National Avenue, San Diego CA December 2009 City of Santa Ana WarnerAvenue Transportation Study Historical Resource Survey, Santa Ana, CA December 2009 Proposed Heidi Square Redevelopment Project— Project Management, Preservation Planning & Subdivision Re -Design Consulting, San Lorenzo, CA November 2009 City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, Historical Resource Review of 4102-4122 University Avenue, San Diego, CA November 2009 CEQA Historical Resource Analysis Report, 7195 Country Club Drive, La Jolla, CA November 2009 Imig Manor/Lafayette Hotel Part 1 2o% Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Application August 2009 CEQA Historical Resource Analysis Report, 5511 CalumetAvenue, La Jolla, CA August 2009 Preservation Planning Study, Site Development, & Rehabilitation Analysis of the Herman Hotel Carriage House, Chula Vista, CA wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C August 2009 Historical Site Designation, Design Review, & Mills Act Property Tax Consulting for the Dennstedt Building Company's Calavo Gardens Queen Avenue Dwelling, Mt. Helix, CA August 2009 CEQA and NHPA Section 1o6 Review of the Nike Missile Defense System - LA - 14/29 Commemorative Site, unincorporated Los Angeles, CA July 2009 Code Compliance & Resource Review, 2341 Irving Avenue, San Diego, CA July 2009 City of Santa Ana Bristol & 1711 Transportation Study Historical Resource Survey, Santa Ana, CA May 2009 Fresno Unified School District Historical Resource Survey of the Proposed M- 4 Site, Fresno, CA May 2009 Section 1o6 Review of Casa Blanca —716 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA April2009 Design Review Analysis for the 2110 Glenneyre Street Property, Laguna Beach, CA April2009 Section 1o6 Review of the Fairfax Theatre, Oakland, CA March 2009 National Register of Historic Places Documentation & Eligibility Evaluation for the Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project, Placer County, California February 2oo9 Historical Resource Analysis Report & Design Review —337 Hawthorne Road, Laguna Beach, CA February 2009 San Diego Normal School Campus Phase I Preservation Planning Study & Historical Resource Survey, San Diego, CA January 2009 Historical Resource Analysis Report, 634 end Avenue, Chula Vista, CA October 2oo8 Pier 29 National Historic Preservation Act Finding of Effects Statement, San Francisco, CA 2007-2oo8 Lead Consultant— City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program Development— City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program Binder (ordinance, historic inventory database, historical overview statement, incentives, project review process and related permit application and processing forms August 2oo8 Mayor John Gill Residence, Designation, Mills Act & Rehabilitation Consulting, San Leandro, CA July 2oo8 California Portland Cement Company P&H Excavators #3 & #4 Historic Context Statement & California Register Eligibility Review, Mojave, CA July 2oo8 Historic Context Statement— Bean Springs Site, Rosamond, CA June 2oo8 Cultural Resource Report & Regulatory Review, PL-SCE-Tehachapi-1oH, Acton, CA May 2oo8 Historical Resource Documentation & Review, San Diego Aqueduct, San Diego, CA Apri 12oo8 Historic Site Designation & Mills Act Historic Property Tax Consulting for the Goldberg Residence, 4654 Iowa Street, San Diego, CA April 2008 Storefront Improvement/Fagade Revitalization Historical Resource Analysis & Design Review Assistance, 32o1 Adams Avenue, San Diego, CA March 2008 Lombardi Ranch CEQA Review, San Ardo, California February 2oo8 Del -Sur Saugus Mining Complex Historical Resource Review, Grass Valley, CA February 2oo8 Foothill Ranch Historical Resource Review, Palmdale, CA January 2oo8 Section 1o6 Review 1425-1475 South Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA January 2oo8 Historic Site Designation Report & Mills Act Property Tax Consulting - Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historic District Contributor, 467o Del Monte Ave., San Diego, CA November 2007 Historic Site Designation & Mills Act Historic Property Tax Consulting for the Olmstead Building Company's Calavo Gardens Project #531, Mt. Helix, CA October 2007 Southern CA Edison Company's Del Sur -Saugus Transmission Line Historical Resource Review, Lancaster - Palmdale, CA wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING «C October zoo? Southern CA Edison Company's Antelope Substation Historical Resource Review, Lancaster, CA September zoo? Historical Resource Review& Data Responses for the Proposed SDG&E Orange Grove Energy Project in Pala, CA September zoo? SCE Kaiser Pass Cabin Historic Property Assessment, Fresno Co., CA August zoo? USDA Forest Service Meeks Creeks Bridge Assessment, Lake Tahoe, CA July zoo? Historical Resource Analysis Report, 433 W. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA May zoo? Historic Preservation Assessment & New Project Planning and Design Consulting —3994 Jackda w Street, San Diego (CA) February zoo? 419 Park Way Historical Resource Analysis Report, Chula Vista, CA January zoo? Upper Triangle Areas Historic Property Survey (Historic Context Statement and Architectural/Historical Documentation of So Properties overly City Blocks), Fresno, CA December 2oo6 Historic Site Designation & Mills Act Historic Property Tax Consulting for the Charles Wakefield Cadman Residence, Mt. Helix, CA. November 2oo6 Historical Resource Analysis of the 43o3 Narragansett Avenue Property, San Diego, CA September 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of the 1333 Balboa Street Property, San Francisco, CA September 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of the Historic Delta -Mendota Canal, Los Banos, CA August 2oo6 Historical Evaluation Report-2959 EastAvenue, Hayward, CA June 2oo6 Historical Resource Analysis Report: 418-450101h Avenue Properties, San Diego, CA May 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of the Cocoanut Grove Building — Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, Santa Cruz, CA May 2oo6 Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the 7015th Street Warehouse, San Diego, CA Apri 12oo6 Historic Site Designation Report & Mills Act Property Tax Consulting - Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historic District Contributor, 4528 Saratoga Avenue, San Diego, CA March 2oo6 City of Fresno Arts -Culture District Historic Property Survey (Historic Context Statement and Architectural/Historical Documentation of go -too Properties over 18 City Blocks), Fresno, CA March 2oo6 South Mossdale Historic -Era House Evaluation, Lathrop, CA February 2oo6 Westwind Barn Historic Preservation Study, Los Altos Hills, CA January 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of the 2654 Mission Street Property, San Francisco, CA January 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of the325 Mowry Avenue Property, Fremont, CA 94536 January 2oo6 Section 1o6 Review of Ardenwood 34551 Ardenwood Bouevard, Fremont, CA 94SSS December 2005 Section 1o6 Review of the 123o N Street Property, Sacramento, CA 9SB14 Decem be 2005 Section 1o6 Review of the Sacramento City College Water Tower, Sacramento, CA November 2005 Section 1o6 Review of Fair Oaks Watts, 525 La Sierra Drive, Sacramento, CA November 2005 Napa Valley College Bus Shelter West Historical Resource Analysis Report, Napa, CA October 2005 Section 1o6 Review of the 10253rd Street Property, Sacramento, CA 95818 September 2005 City of Davis, Historic Anderson Bank Building Research, Documentation & Design Review Analysis, 2o3 G Street, Davis, CA September 2oo5 Historical Resource Analysis Report, 1212 & 1214 Second Street, San Rafael, CA wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C August 2005 Historical Resource Analysis Report — Somky Property/Thompson's Soscol Ranch, Napa, CA 94558 July 2005 Walnut Creek Women's Club Environmental Impact Report, 1224 Lincoln Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA June 2005 Tam Property Lot Split Historic Preservation Consulting, Castro Valley, CA May 2005 Historical Resource Analysis Report, 7329-7331 Eads Avenue, San Diego, CA March 2005 Ehlers Estate Historical Resource Analysis, 3222 Ehlers Lane, St. Helena, CA March 2005 University of CA at Santa Cruz Preservation Consulting (Campus Wide Cultural Resources Inventory, Historic Context Statement — Campus Planning History) February 2005 Hall Winery Historical Resource Analysis, St. Helena, CA January 2005 Historical Resource Evaluation, 700 28th Avenue, San Mateo, CA January 2005 Historical Resource Evaluation, 312 &318 Highland Avenue, San Mateo, CA December 2004 San Mateo Motel Historical Resource Report— Park Bayshore Townhomes — Environmental Impact Report (Revised February 2005) November 2004 Historical Evaluation of the San Mateo Motel, 8o1 South Bayshore Boulevard, San Mateo, CA October 2004 Stonegate Homes Subdivision Plan, and Single -and -Mufti -Family Dwellings Design Review, San Mateo, CA September 2004 University of CA at Santa Cruz, Getty Campus Heritage Grant Application September 2004 City of Riverside Downtown Fire Station No.1 Cultural Resources Analysis, Riverside, CA August 2004 Residential Remodel Design Review— Glazenwood Historic District Contributor, 929 Laurel Avenue, San Mateo, CA August 2004 Odd Fellows Hall, Historic Structure Report, 113 South B Street, San Mateo, CA (with Conservator Seth Bergstein) July 2004 Design Review Analysis—Schneider's Building, 208 East Third Street, San Mateo, CA 94401 July 2004 Embarcadero Cove Development Project Initial Study— Preliminary Historical Resource Analysis, Oakland, CA 946o6 July 2004 Historical Resource Evaluation Report —4830 Cape May Avenue, San Diego, CA 92107 (Revised January 2005) June 2004 City of Monterey Alvarado Street Mixed -Use Project - APE Survey, Monterey, CA June 2004 City and County of San Francisco Historical Resource Evaluation Report 45o Frederick Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 June 2004 Design Review Analysis —117 Clark Drive, San Mateo, CA 94402 May 2004 Historical Evaluation of the 426 Clark Drive Residence, San Mateo, CA 94402 April 2004 City and County of San Francisco Historical Resource Evaluation Report — 1272 42nd Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122 April 2004 City of Fresno Broadway Row Historical Resource Survey, Fresno, CA March 2004 Historical Evaluation of the 117 Clark Drive Residence, San Mateo, CA 94402 March 2004 Historical Evaluation of The Fresno Republican/McMahan's Building, 2030 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721 February 2004 Crocker Bank Building Preservation Planning Considerations Memorandum January 2004 Historical Evaluation of the Sol Walnut Street Residence, San Carlos, CA 94070 January 2004 Historical Evaluation of the 20 Madison Avenue and 29 HobartAvenue Properties, San Mateo, CA 94402 January 2004 Historical Evaluation of The Residence Located At571 Valley Street, San Francisco, CA January 2004 Historical Evaluation of the3925 loth Street Residence, San Francisco, CA 94131 wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING «C November 2003 Historical Evaluation of Commercial Building Located at 1022 El Camino Real, San Carlos, CA November 2003 Peer Review Statementfor the K& T Foods Building, 451 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA November 2003 Historical Evaluation of the Greer-O'Brine Property, 51 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, November 2003 Embarcadero Hotel Environmental Impact Report, Historical Resources Analysis and Design Review Statement October 2003 City of San Leandro Historical Resources Survey, Historic Context Statement, Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Draft Historic Preservation Benefits/Incentive Program August 2003 Palm Theater Environmental Impact Report, Historical Resources Analysis July 2003 Historical Evaluation of The First Christian Church Building, 2701 Flores Street, San Mateo, CA 94403 June 2003 Alameda Naval Air Station Reuse Project Historic Preservation Regulatory and Policy Memorandum (Prepared for Alameda Point Community Partners -Master Developer for NAS Alameda) May 2003 Historical Evaluation of The Residence Located At 6o6 Dorchester Road, San Mateo, CA March 2003 Ames Aeronautical Laboratory 4o'x8o'Wind Tunnel National Register Nomination (Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center) March 2003 Ames Aeronautical Laboratory 6'x 6'Supersonic Wind Tunnel National Register Nomination (Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center) March 2003 Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Administration Building National Register Nomination (Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center) March 2003 Historical Evaluation of The Residence Located At 1o15 South Grant Street, San Mateo, CA February 2003 81h & Market, 10 United Nations Plaza, Cell Site Impact Review, San Francisco, CA February 2003 Existing Conditions and Subdivision Design Alternatives for The Proposed Hayman Homes Tract No. 7267, Proctor Road, Castro Valley, CA February 2003 Historical Evaluation of The Residence Located At336 West PoplarAvenue, San Mateo, CA January 2003 Historical Evaluation of The Residence Located At744 Occidental Avenue, San Mateo, CA January 2003 Historical Evaluation of the 131 and 141 West Third Avenue Apartment Buildings, San Mateo, CA December 2002 CA State Capitol Building, Historical Resource Review, Sacramento, CA November 2002 Wireless Antenna Site Review, Medical Arts Building, 2000 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA October 2002 Historical Evaluation of The LeDucq Winery Estate, 3222 Ehlers Lane, St. Helena, CA 94574 (Revised June 2003) October 2002 Historical Assessment of The St. Patrick's Parish Community Building Located At35853orn Street, San Diego, CA, 92104 September 2002 Historical Assessment of The Building Located At 4257 Third Street, San Diego, CA, April 2002 Historical Assessment of The Building Located At3567 Ray Street, San Diego, CA, October 2001 Historical Assessment of The Gustafson's Furniture Building Located At 2930 El Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, CA, 92104 September 2oo1 Historical Review of Lots A, B, K & L, Block 93, Horton's Addition Lockling, San Diego, CA August 2011 El Cortez Hotel Part - Request for Certification of Completed Work wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY • ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian + Urban / Preservation Planner PKS�RVATION & PLANNING "C August zoos Core Inventory of All Sites Appearing to Be More Than 45 Years of Age Not Previously Documented (Prepared For Centre City Development Corporation) August zoos Urbana ProjectAbstract Bibliography (Prepared for Dr. Roger Caves, San Diego State University and San Diego State University Foundation) July Zoos Historical Assessment of The Kirkland Apartments Building Located At 2309 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA, 92103 July zoos Historical Assessment of The Building Located At 423o Maryland Street, San Diego, CA, 92103 (With Kathleen A. Crawford) June zoos Historical Assessment of the 2525-2529, 2537-2547, 2561 FirstAvenue Residences, San Diego, CA 92103 May 2001 Update of The November1988 Historic Site Inventory of Centre City East for Centre City Development Corporation (with Scott Moomjian) April 2001 East Village Inventory of All Sites Appearing to Be More Than 45 Years of Age Not Previously Documented (Prepared for Centre City Development Corporation) April 2001 Update of The May 1989 Historic Site Inventory of Bayside for Centre City Development Corporation January 2001 Historic Survey Report of The Former Teledyne -Ryan Aeronautical Complex 2701 North Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 921o1(with Scott Moomjian) January 2001 Historical Assessment of The Fletcher -Salmons Building 602-624 Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 December 2000 Cultural Resource Report for The Winona Avenue Area Elementary School Preferred Site, Alternative 1 Site, and Alternative z SiteNovember 2000 Cultural Resource Report for The Edison/Hamilton/Parks Area Elementary School Preferred Site and Alternative Sites November 2000 Cultural Resource Report for The Adams/Franklin Area Elementary School Preferred Site and Alternative Site October 2000 The National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary; Old Town San Diego August 2000 Cultural Resource Report for The Winona Avenue Area Elementary School Preferred Site and Alternative Sites July 2000 Cultural Resource Report, 52 d Street Area Elementary School Preferred & Alternative Sites, San Diego, CA July 2000 Historical Assessment of the 3658 Warner Street Residence, San Diego, CA 92106 July 2000 Historical Assessment of the 367 Catalina Boulevard Residence, San Diego, CA 92106 July 2000 Historical Assessment of the go6 West Lewis Street Residence, San Diego, CA 92103 May z000 Historical Assessment of the Sol-So3, 507 and Sog 14th Street Residences, San Diego, CA May 2000 The San Diego Flume Company System Redwood Pipeline, San Diego County, CA March 2000 Historical Assessment of The Society for Crippled Children's Hydrotherapy Gymnasium Located at 8S1 South 35th Street, San Diego, CA 92113 *Visit www.urbanapreservation.com for project profiles and additional information. wendy@urbanapreservation.com URBAN PLANNING • HISTORIC PRESERVATION ■ HISTORY ■ ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Affidavit Regarding Community Meeting I, Brian Leung, declare as follows: This declaration is made on behalf of Greenlaw Partners, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-153. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and am able to competently testify thereto. I am available, on behalf of Greenlaw Partners, to answer any questions regarding the matters discussed herein. 2. The community meeting required by Section 1-153 was held by Greenlaw Partners, in compliance with Section 2-153, on July 8, 2021 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm in an online virtual environment (Zoom Video). 3. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners, and at least one occupant per dwelling unit having a valid United States Postal Service address within a 500-foot radius of the project site, on June 28, 2021. 4. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and restrictions to in person gatherings, the community meeting was hosted online via Zoom. No physical notice posting at the project site was required by the City. 5. Notice of the meeting was published in the Orange County Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Ana, on July 7, 2021. 6. Meeting minutes were prepared by Kimley-Horn that provide an accurate description and summary of the meeting. 7. The meeting was conducted in an open house format, but began with opening remarks from the developer, as well as a question and answer session. A true and correct copy of the video of the opening remarks, including questions from the public and answers thereto were shared with the City of Santa Ana Staff Planner. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this date of July 13, 2021, at Orange, California. Brain Leung Kimley»>Horn Virtual Sunshine Neighborhood Community Meeting 1700 Garry Avenue Light Industrial Development Project Held Thursday July 8, 2021 at 6 PM (via Zoom) Hosted by: Greenlaw Partners, AO (Architects Orange), and Kimley-Horn and Associates In compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance, a community meeting was held virtually on July 8t" 2021 from 6:00 pm — 7:00 pm. Representatives from the Developer were as follows: • Derek Meddings (Greenlaw Partners) • Rob Mitchell (Greenlaw Partners) • Steve Przybylowski (AO) Representatives from the City of Santa Ana: • Ali Pezeshkpour (assigned Case Planner) Representatives of the Community: • Tim Rushmore • David Sahban • David • Scott • Garry Plaza Office Park • Pat Regan • Brian Leung (Kimley-Horn) • Nick Chen (Kimley-Horn) • Kiana Graham (Kimley-Horn) • Fabiola Melicher • Maggie • J • JB • Thomas E Bradfield Eleven members of the community attended the virtual meeting. Kimley Horn waited for additional members of the community to log into the virtual meeting before starting the presentation. The representative from AO presented an overview of the project. Several questions were written into the chat box and asked verbally during the comments and questions portion. These questions are documented below. No additional members of the community attended the event. All representatives from the City and Developer team stayed on the virtual meeting with the attendees until 7 pm. Community Questions and Comments 1. Chat Question: What is the timeline for evicting current tenants and demolishing the buildings? Kimley»>Horn Verbal Response: There is no set timeline as of now, we are still in the application process with the City. Once we have gotten the approvals, which we estimate to be about six months from now, we will look at setting some dates and timelines. 2. Chat Question: How many trucks a day? Verbal Response: Since there are currently no tenants for the building as of now and we are still going through with our approvals to spec build the building, we don't know the what the hours of operation are and what they might entail until we get a tenant in the building. 3. Chat Question: San Clemente facility similar size 11 per day not 2 Verbal Response: This is about an Amazon site that Greenlaw is involved with in San Clemente. This project is not an Amazon location and Amazon will not be a tenant. Verbal Comments and Discussion: Participant comment about if this is a similar size facility, wouldn't the truck frequency match that of the Amazon location. Verbal Response: Rob of Greenlaw responded that this is not an Amazon project, nor affiliated with a sub -contractor of Amazon. They do not know who the tenant will be and have no prospects at the time of this meeting. Verbal Comments and Discussion: Participant comment about the location of the pin on the flyer and possible exclusion of nearby tenants due to the pin being to the right and not in the center. Verbal Response: The developer's response is that they are willing to set up any future calls or meetings for anyone who may have been missed in proximity due to the pin location on the flyer. The developer was not aware of how the pin was placed on the flyer or any details about the pin. Verbal Comments and Discussion: Discussion about the orientation and location of the docks for the trucks in the proposed development. Verbal Response: The developer explained the reasoning behind the location of the docks and their consideration of the views of the freeway. Verbal Comments and Discussion: Community participant had concerns about trucks on the nearby streets. Community participant concern about the zone change from office to light industrial, specifically concerns about the easement in place. Kimley»>Horn Page 3 Verbal Response: The developer explained that the plan was always to tear down the building. Originally the plan was to put in residential units, but due to the change in market, the developer moved to light industrial. Community participant is opposed to the construction of light development and would like other uses to be explored. Greenlaw has another meeting set with the commenters to discuss further. 4. Chat Question: What hours will the trucks be arriving at the site? Response: This was discussed in the above question regarding how many trucks per day. There is no tenant identified yet, therefore the Developer cannot speculate on hours of operation. 5. Chat Question: Is Kimley Horn preparing the CEQA? Verbal Response: Ali, the planner responsible for reviewing this project responded that no, Kimley-Horn would not be preparing the environmental documents for the project. The City will hire its own consultant to prepare the environmental documentation that is required. The developer will pay for the City's time and reimburse them for it, but the environmental document will be prepared by someone independent of the developer. Question during discussion asking Ali if he plans to stay on this project, to which Ali responds that he has no intent to leave the City. 6. Chat Question: When will this project start? Verbal Response: The project will not start until city approval, which is at least 6 months. At least a year out from starting construction. 7. Chat Question: How many trucks will be parking on the street, could the trucks arrive on Alton? Verbal Response: The developer responded and said they are unsure of what the truck routes are at this time. They have started the process of conducting a traffic study, but it is not complete and so they cannot answer that question right now. 8. Chat Question: Will the tenants be notified with enough amicable time of move out? Verbal Response: The tenants will be notified once the City gives their approval for the project, which is probably six months out. The developer has been in contact with the tenants and are trying to give ample notice. 9. Chat Question: Does the widening of the 55-freeway project impact your project? Kimley»>Horn Verbal Response: No, this was already taken into account in the project's plans. 10. Chat Question: How long does the environmental phase typically take for projects like this? Verbal Response: Environmental documentation depends on the type of documentation required for the project. The City will determine what environmental documents are needed. If a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed, the process should take a few months. If an Environmental Impact Report was needed the process is expected to take an additional six to nine months. 11. Verbal Question: Will you do any extensive traffic studies to address nearby streets backing up? Verbal Response: There are intensive traffic studies underway. The use that we are proposing is less trips than the current use and therefore will create less traffic. The traffic studies will be available once they are completed. 12. Verbal Question: How are you going to have less trips? Verbal Response: Less people (working at the project site location) will create less trips. 13. Verbal Question: How many dock doors do you expect? Verbal Response: There are 11 dock positions. 14. Verbal Question: Are you going to allow shipping containers on the property? Verbal Response: Currently there is no provision for trailer storage. 15. Verbal Question: Is it going to become a tow yard? Verbal Response: It is not the intent that this development becomes a tow yard, it is supposed to be light industrial. 16. Verbal Question: Is there a way to get a copy of this presentation? Verbal Response: Yes, this is being recorded and will be available on the project website. Kimley»>Horn Radius notification letters: Notice mailers were distributed to nearby property owners within a 500-foot radius. Several letters were returned to the development team for several reasons, including addresses to vacant tenant offices and letters returned to sender that were unable to be forwarded. See attached Table 1 and Table 2 for complete list of returned notices. Kimley»>Horn Page 6 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Vacant Mailing Mailing Parcel First Owner Mailing Address Address Address Use Code Number Full Name City/State Zip NKMAX 430- AMERICA 10 PASTEUR IRVINE CA 92618 IMSC 191-12 INC 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 102 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 104 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 114 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 115 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 116 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 207 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 208 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 209 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 210 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 211 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 212 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 215 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 220 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 225 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 228 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 236 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 103 MISCELLANEOUS Kimley»>Horn Page 7 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 113 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 116 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 201 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 202 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 203 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 204 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 207 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 208 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 209 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 211 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 212 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 213 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 216 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 220 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 222 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 223 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 224 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 228 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 232 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 233 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 114 MISCELLANEOUS Kimley»>Horn Page 8 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 118 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 120 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 203 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 205 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 210 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 215 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 216 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 217 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 222 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 226 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 227 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 230 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 233 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 234 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 235 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 236 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 2933 PULLMAN COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 173-04 ST MISCELLANEOUS 430- 2923 PULLMAN COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 173-10 ST MISCELLANEOUS 430- 2938 DAIMLER COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 173-16 ST MISCELLANEOUS 430- 2952 DAIMLER COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 173-18 ST MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1800 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 411 AVE 111 MISCELLANEOUS Kimley»>Horn Page 9 930-01- 1800 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 420 AVE 202 MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1800 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 429 AVE 211 MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1800 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 437 AVE 219 MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1820 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 445 AVE 103A MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1820 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 446 AVE 104A MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1820 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 447 AVE 105A MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1820 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 461 AVE 201D MISCELLANEOUS 930-01- 1820 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 481 AVE 221D MISCELLANEOUS 4100 411- HW-DYER NEWPORT MACARTHUR 92660 IMSC 142-13 LLC BEACH CA BLVD 310 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Unclaimed Mailing Parcel First Owner Mailing MailingMailing Use Code Number Full Name Address Address Zip City/State 1800 E 930-01- COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT GARRY SANTA ANA CA 92705 417 MISCELLANEOUS PAVE 430-173- 1801 E COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 21 GARRY AVE MISCELLANEOUS 430-191- 3009 INDUSTRIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 13 DAIMLER ST MISCELLANEOUS 1800 E 930-01- COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 412 MISCELLANEOUS 2 1800 E 930-01- COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT GARRY SANTA ANA CA 92705 414 MISCELLANEOUS PAVE REGAN 1800 E 930-01- DISTRIBUTORS GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 CMSC 405 INC 105 Kimley»>Horn Page 10 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Not Known Mailing Mailing Parcel First Owner Full Mailing Address Address Use Code Number Name Address City/State Zip 1835 930-01- COSTA MESA MELINDA WELLS NEWPORT 92627 CMSC 446 CA BLVD A109 1212 N 930-01- GARRY SANTA ANA BROADWAY 92701 CMSC 470 INVESTMENTS LLC CA 204 INDUSTRIAL 411- 2907 S TECH SANTA ANA OCCUPANT 92705 MISCELLANEOU 142-04 CENTER DR CA S INDUSTRIAL 411- 2909 S TECH SANTA ANA OCCUPANT 92705 MISCELLANEOU 142-09 CENTER DR CA S ORANGE CNTY 430- 1720E SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION 92705 CMSC 171-07 GARRY AVE CA AUT 411- ORANGE COUNTY 300 N FLOWER SANTA ANA 92703 MGOV 141-05 FLOOD ST CA 411- 2923STECH SANTA ANA YEUNG 92705 IMSC 142-05 CENTER DR CA 1700 GAR SIGHT INC DEVELOP Thursday July 8, 2021, at 6 PM PILIAIWA9 !"ANW, Virtual Sunshine Neighborhood Community Meeting Hosted by: Greenlaw Partners, AO (Architects Orange), and Kimley-Horn and Associates -Project Background -Existing Conditions -Proposed Project -Next Steps -Q/A PROJECT BACKGROUND REGIONAL CONTEXT S �` fir• s = LLL LOCAL CONTEXT EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Address: 1700 Garry Avenue APN: 430-171-07 ■5.13-acre site 3 separate, two-story office park buildings Approximately 53,000 building SF Primarily surface parking Typical ornamental landscaping Aerial View from South EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW - View from Garry Avenue, looking south toward existing office buildings EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View within parking lot, looking west toward the 1740 Garry Avenue Building EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View within parking lot, looking north toward Garry Avenue. SR-55 on the west EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW Internal site view from parking lot, looking north toward 1700 Garry Avenue building EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View from SR-55, looking east toward project site PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT One light industrial flex building with demising wall for online e-commerce "last mile" deliveries Hours of operation — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Most deliveries to occur during the day User A and User B = 93,900 total building SF User A— 51000 SF office space and 37,900 SF warehouse User B— 5,000 SF office space and 46,000 SF warehouse > GARRY AVENUE r ••� — h. �3� i 10 3 _ 1J ♦ L . f , OFFICE / �-z ...'I. &MEa i 10 1 ' �j . m . X- - JJ ; rypl' I 40 epp5F+25005F_ SF j I� 78,4025E+1- Q 8B.BOISF+S.000SF= \ \_ 93MDSE_---------- W ` ` ---- 140 STALLS (�.&1000) Lij Elf F, �^ W 3 TYP. ` <8.9005F*3,6005F• B 51;,000SF a- I IIW I I - mI I o � I II OFFICE Nd9R31'W 81,]C T 4 dunsI N48'41'dW 6pfjp EyiG„O SgnW R­in N4E•11"111V pppp ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE)'- ENTITLEMENTS General Plan Amendment: Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to Industrial Zone Change: Professional to M1 (Light Industrial) Development Project Review GARRY AVENUE 3 r I I I I B.6 USER', LEGAL DESCRIPTION 40A05F �25W F_ 42,900SF L.P.: 278,4025E+1- Q F_ ,r 88.90pSF+5.0005F= LU 1400 SFAALLS (1.515000)________ UJ F.A.Fi�. - 42.9% o' �"' i -if � ----- USER'. 4E Ft16008F• - I -�.. -� — a B 51;,DOOSFLIJ - I „ O 1 IFIFl2. 0 . j'll 3-T 1 r N4B'41:d'IN g6fjp E�eGng Sgnm Rgm�n N4B'41'AW ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE) im _RIUMI mm'1! MATERIAL BOARD 5. ASURIA SOLARBAN 90 (3� 6.5HERWIN WILLIA.MS 5W 7757 HIGH REFLECTIVE WKI:TE (METAL PAINT) 1. SNERWIN WILLIAMS 2- SHERWIN WILLLWS 3- SHERWIN WIiLINAS d- SHERWIN WILLIA.MS $W 6450 5W 7637 5W 6162 sw 7018 EASY GREEN OYSTER WHTE ANCIENT M ARSLE DOVETAIL 6 1 3 2 d i SCREEN WALL ELEVATIONS PARTIAL PLAN 275'-0" 1. SCREEN WALL ELEVATION PARTIAL PLAN 149'-C" emtiaeeeo,xcw.0—rrtoaartehws m e 2. SCREEN WALL ELEVATION PARTIAL PLAN I I me 3. SCREEN WALL ELEVATION rx7or� AEvcvs � e PARTIAL PLAN 68'-8" rrM'-mawcin o b m 4. SCREEN WALL ELEVATION 401 ♦ 2 KEY PLAN 0 I -+ r% t4 e-.-n r %,-% D I -% r, n 1 GARRY AVENUE +� ..... . a _.. .. #1 7FO 'A 1' I —_— / I * + 1 4 s Lu Lu I I I of I�:: «— I PROPOSED lr = BUILDING 2 FOR I I I ENLrtiRGEMENT'6 I SEE SHEET L2 ' ... I::. L��I����� a' ok ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE) I r a LEGEND 0 SIDEWALK 0 ACCESSIBLE RAMP 0 LOADING ZONE 0 PARKING TREES 0 SCREEN TREES 0 DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING 0 TRASH ENCLOSURE 0 TRANSFORMER 0 9 HT METAL FENCE & GATE DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL EASEMENT LINE NEW PROPERTY LINE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN VINE PLANTING 30 60 0 Plant Schedule, Hardscapes, and Site Furnishings HARDSCAPE SITE FURNISHINGS I 0m BIKE RACK MODEL: EMERSON BIKE RACK MFG LANDSCAPE FORMS COLOR I FINISH: SILVER POWDER OOAT VINE SHRUBS, SUCCULENTS, GRASSES & GROUND COVERS r_ .rtr� ..ev.a�.n...�ra�.rv�, uuw.uia.vme,v.r� ernrr r� „,.- -.. �� are irvv vnvEas NEXT STEPS NEXT STEPS � 110 • City reviews Development Review Application and plans • Environmental Review under CEQA required • Future Public Noticing and Public Hearings • Approvals and Permitting Process • Construction anticipated 2023 Comments and Questions? Contact Information DEREK MEDDINGS - (949) 309-1322 GREENLAW PARTNERS ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER --SINCE 1921-- Mailing Address: 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841 Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com Kiana Graham KIMLEY HORN 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD,700 ORANGE, CA 92868 COPY OF NOTICE Notice Type: GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE Ad Description 1700 Garry Ave_Flyer To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): 07/07/2021 An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice. Daily Journal Corporation Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027 BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111 DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829 SAN JOSE POST -RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866 THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355 THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486 THE INTER -CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747 OR# 3488629 Parcel Number First Owner Full Name #10701 6/28/2021 430-171-07 ORANGE CNTY TRANSPORTATION AUT 411-141-05 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD 411-141-06 WAN CHAN 411-142-02 WINCHESTER EQUITY GROUP LLC 411-142-03 CHUCK WU 411-142-04 WINCHESTER EQUITY GROUP LLC 411-142-05 YEUNG 411-142-06 YEUNG 411-142-07 2919 TECH CENTER DRIVE LLC 411-142-08 ANTHONY M CARLINI 411-142-09 DALEO ENTERPRISES 411-142-10 WOJCIECH SMOLENSKI 411-142-11 KSDG LLC 411-142-12 FRZ CORP INC 411-142-13 HW-DYER LLC 411-152-09 FIRST INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LLC 430-112-06 GAGOS PROPERTIES LTD 430-112-07 SIXTH & VERMONT INVESTMENT CO LL 430-114-06 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC 430-114-07 17072 DAIMLER LLC 430-115-01, 03 JOHN WASHER 430-115-02 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 430-115-04 JUNE EKLUND 430-115-05 RJV & ASSOCIATES LLC 430-171-05 DUPLO U S A CORP 430-171-07 ORANGE CNTY TRANSPORTATION AUT 430-173-02 OPEN DOORS WITH BROTHER ANDREW 1 430-173-04 MAM PROPERTIES LLC 430-173-05 WOODLEY BUSINESS PROPERTIES LLC 430-173-06 ALBERT HANNA 430-173-07 MAM PROPERTIES LLC 430-173-10 ACCORD HOLDINGS LLC 430-173-11 SCOTT A LISSOY 430-173-15 CGMC LLC 430-173-16 FREDERICK M MYERS 430-173-17, 18 DAHL TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES CONSTRU 430-173-19 TRITON PROPERTIES LLC 430-173-20 GRANITE PROPERTIES LLC 430-173-21 LISSOY SCOTT A THE LISSOY FAMILY 430-173-22 1751 EAST GARRY LLC 430-191-12 NKMAX AMERICA INC 430-191-13 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC 930-01-401, 402, 403, 404, 409 JACK STEVENS 930-01-405 REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC 930-01-406 REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC 930-01-407 THOMAS LINDAHL 930-01-408 TRUSTAT SAFETY & HEALTH SOURCE L 930-01-410 1800 E GARRY AVE LLC 930-01-411 REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC 930-01-412, 464 PACIFIC LOAN SOLUTIONS LLC 930-01-413, 414, 415, 416 JACK STEVENS 930-01-417, 429, 432, 478, 481 WM STEVENS 930-01-418, 419, 420, 421, 422 JACK STEVENS 930-01-423 DAVID KUHN 930-01-424 FLAGSTONE PROPERTIES LLC 930-01-425, 427, 431, 433 - 438 JACK STEVENS 930-01-426 OCEANLINK SHIPPING LOGISTICS 930-01-428 EHAB S SOLIMAN 930-01-430 ULADZISLAU KANDYBOVICH 930-01-439 CHRISTOPHER TRENT 930-01-440, 441, 442 JACK STEVENS 930-01-443, 444, 445 DAVID C RUSHMORE 930-01-446 MELINDA WELLS 930-01-447 - 453 JACK STEVENS 930-01-454 RAYMOND S LEE 930-01-455, 456, 457, 458, 466 JACK STEVENS 930-01-459, 472 PARISA MOGHADDAM 930-01-460 KHA INVESTMENTS LLC 930-01-461 KEYSTONE EQUITY GROUP INC 930-01-462 AJJA INVESTMENTS LLC 930-01-463, 465 GREWALL LLC 930-01-467 RUSSAMEL INVESTMENTS 930-01-468 RAY NAG H I BI 930-01-469 ELIZABETH ORTIZ 930-01-470 GARRY INVESTMENTS LLC 930-01-471 PEBBLE BEACH HOLDING LLC 930-01-473, 475, 480, 482, 483 JACK STEVENS 930-01-474 AGGARWAL DEV DARSH 930-01-475, 480, 482, 483 JACK STEVENS 930-01-476 LOUIS L LAU 930-01-477 SUNRISE REALTY LLC 930-01-479 WADE KIRK 930-01-484 ADDIS PHARMA TECH CORP 939-64-001 ZEBRA INVESTMENTS LLC 939-64-002 800 E DYER RD LLC 411-141-05 VACANT 411-141-06 VACANT 411-142-02 OCCUPANT 411-142-03 OCCUPANT 411-142-04 OCCUPANT 411-142-05 OCCUPANT 411-142-06 OCCUPANT 411-142-07 OCCUPANT 411-142-08 OCCUPANT 411-142-09 OCCUPANT 411-142-10 OCCUPANT 411-142-11 OCCUPANT 411-142-12 OCCUPANT 411-142-12 OCCUPANT 411-142-13 VACANT 411-152-09 OCCUPANT 430-112-06 OCCUPANT 430-112-07 OCCUPANT 430-114-06 VACANT 430-114-07 OCCUPANT 430-115-01 OCCUPANT 430-115-02 VACANT 430-115-03 OCCUPANT 430-115-04 OCCUPANT 430-115-05 OCCUPANT 430-171-05 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 430-173-02 OCCUPANT 430-173-04 OCCUPANT 430-173-05 OCCUPANT 430-173-05 OCCUPANT 430-173-06 OCCUPANT 430-173-07 OCCUPANT 430-173-10 OCCUPANT 430-173-10 OCCUPANT 430-173-11 OCCUPANT 430-173-15 OCCUPANT 430-173-16 OCCUPANT 430-173-17 OCCUPANT 430-173-18 OCCUPANT 430-173-19 OCCUPANT 430-173-20 OCCUPANT 430-173-21 OCCUPANT 430-173-22 OCCUPANT 430-191-12 OCCUPANT 430-191-13 OCCUPANT 930-01-401 OCCUPANT 930-01-402 OCCUPANT 930-01-403 OCCUPANT 930-01-404 OCCUPANT 930-01-405 OCCUPANT 930-01-406 OCCUPANT 930-01-407 OCCUPANT 930-01-408 OCCUPANT 930-01-409 OCCUPANT 930-01-410 OCCUPANT 930-01-411 OCCUPANT 930-01-412 OCCUPANT 930-01-413 OCCUPANT 930-01-414 OCCUPANT 930-01-415 OCCUPANT 930-01-416 OCCUPANT 930-01-417 OCCUPANT 930-01-418 OCCUPANT 930-01-419 OCCUPANT 930-01-420 OCCUPANT 930-01-421 OCCUPANT 930-01-422 OCCUPANT 930-01-423 OCCUPANT 930-01-424 OCCUPANT 930-01-425 OCCUPANT 930-01-426 OCCUPANT 930-01-427 OCCUPANT 930-01-428 OCCUPANT 930-01-429 OCCUPANT 930-01-430 OCCUPANT 930-01-431 OCCUPANT 930-01-432 OCCUPANT 930-01-433 OCCUPANT 930-01-434 OCCUPANT 930-01-435 OCCUPANT 930-01-436 OCCUPANT 930-01-437 OCCUPANT 930-01-438 OCCUPANT 930-01-439 OCCUPANT 930-01-440 OCCUPANT 930-01-441 OCCUPANT 930-01-442 OCCUPANT 930-01-443 OCCUPANT 930-01-444 OCCUPANT 930-01-445 OCCUPANT 930-01-446 OCCUPANT 930-01-447 OCCUPANT 930-01-448 OCCUPANT 930-01-449 OCCUPANT 930-01-450 OCCUPANT 930-01-451 OCCUPANT 930-01-452 OCCUPANT 930-01-453 OCCUPANT 930-01-454 OCCUPANT 930-01-455 OCCUPANT 930-01-456 OCCUPANT 930-01-457 OCCUPANT 930-01-458 OCCUPANT 930-01-459 OCCUPANT 930-01-460 OCCUPANT 930-01-461 OCCUPANT 930-01-462 OCCUPANT 930-01-463 OCCUPANT 930-01-464 OCCUPANT 930-01-465 OCCUPANT 930-01-466 OCCUPANT 930-01-467 OCCUPANT 930-01-468 OCCUPANT 930-01-469 OCCUPANT 930-01-470 OCCUPANT 930-01-471 OCCUPANT 930-01-472 OCCUPANT 930-01-473 OCCUPANT 930-01-474 OCCUPANT 930-01-475 OCCUPANT 930-01-476 OCCUPANT 930-01-477 OCCUPANT 930-01-478 OCCUPANT 930-01-479 OCCUPANT 930-01-480 OCCUPANT 930-01-481 OCCUPANT 930-01-482 OCCUPANT 930-01-483 OCCUPANT 930-01-484 OCCUPANT 939-64-001 OCCUPANT 939-64-002 OCCUPANT Mailing Address Mailing Address City/State 500' Ownership Listing 500' Occupant Listing 1720 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 300 N FLOWER ST SANTA ANA CA 201 W GARVEY AVE 102 MONTEREY PARK CA 19365 COUNTRYWOOD DR YORBA LINDA CA 3460 WINCHESTER WAY ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 3460 WINCHESTER WAY ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 2923 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 3030 PULLMAN ST COSTA MESA CA 2919 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA PO BOX 12649 NEWPORT BEACH CA PO BOX 2834 ORANGE CA 16787 BEACH BLVD 308 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 2913 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 2915 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD 310 NEWPORT BEACH CA 2530 S BIRCH ST SANTA ANA CA 1319 J ST MODESTO CA 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS 2475 LOS ANGELES CA PO BOX 11150 SANTA ANA CA 17072 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 1100 SANDPIPER DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 15600 SAND CANYON AVE IRVINE CA 1121 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 1167 WARNER AVE TUSTIN CA 3050 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 550 S MAIN ST ORANGE CA 2953 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 2913 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 4201 PRESERVE PKWY N GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 4 HUTTON CENTRE DR 500 SANTA ANA CA 1601 PORT STIRLING PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 19642 VISTA DEL VALLE SANTA ANA CA 2922 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 2932 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 19211 EDGEHILL DR IRVINE CA 2960 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 2942 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 1811 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 2922 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 1751 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 10 PASTEUR IRVINE CA Mailing Address Zip Prepared for: 92705 92703 91754 92886 91748 91748 92705 92626 92705 92658 92859 92647 92705 92705 92660 92707 95354 90067 92711 92614 92625 92618 92614 92780 92705 92868 92705 92705 80121 92707 92660 92705 92705 92705 92603 92705 92705 92705 92705 92705 92618 1 EDWARDS WAY IRVINE CA 92614 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 1800 E GARRY AVE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1448 CHARLESTON ST TUSTIN CA 92782 1800 E GARRY AVE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 3857 BIRCH ST 195 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 1800 E GARRY AVE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 2515 DUKE PL COSTA MESA CA 92626 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 PO BOX 5505 ORANGE CA 92863 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 23265 BUCKLAND LN LAKE FOREST CA 92630 1800 E GARRY AVE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 1800 E GARRY AVE 208 SANTA ANA CA 92705 18529 PETERS CT FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 2618 SAN MIGUEL DR 295 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 1212 AVIATOR LN TUSTIN CA 92782 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 100 VIA FLORENCE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1835 NEWPORT BLVD A109 COSTA MESA CA 92627 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 25222 MAMMOTH CIR ELTORO CA 92630 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 PO BOX 17613 IRVINE CA 92623 2102 BUSINESS CENTER DR 130 IRVINE CA 92612 2729 SATURN ST BREA CA 92821 13681 NEWPORT AVE 8 TUSTIN CA 92780 751 S WEIR CANYON RD 157 ANAHEIM CA 92808 2235 E FLAMINGO RD 152 LAS VEGAS NV 89119 5938 TURNBERRY DR BANNING CA 92220 3152 HIDEOUT LN CORONA CA 92882 1212 N BROADWAY 204 SANTA ANA CA 92701 1820 E GARRY AVE 211C SANTA ANA CA 92705 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 40 GOLF DR ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 3209 E LONGRIDGE DR ORANGE CA 92867 27702 CROWN VALLEY PKWY D4 MISSION VIEJO CA 92694 6 ROCKROSE ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 1820 E GARRY AVE 224D SANTA ANA CA 92705 810 E DYER RD 1 SANTA ANA CA 92705 3631 S HARBOR BLVD 130 SANTA ANA CA 92704 2903 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2905 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2907 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2923 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2921 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2919 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2917 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2909 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2911 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2913 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 2915 S TECH CENTER DR STE A SANTA ANA CA 92705 2915 S TECH CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA CA 92705 3131 S STANDARD AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 17092 PULLMAN ST IRVINE CA 92614 1132 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 17072 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 92614 1021 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 1091 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 1121 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 17031 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 92614 3050 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 102 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 103 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 109 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 112 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 114 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 115 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 117 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 118 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 119 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 120 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 201 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 204 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 207 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 208 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 209 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 211 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 213 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 214 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 220 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 223 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 225 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 228 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 229 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 232 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 233 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 235 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 236 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 102 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 103 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 109 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 112 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 114 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 115 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 117 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 118 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 119 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 120 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 201 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 204 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 207 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 208 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 209 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 211 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 213 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 214 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 216 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 220 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 221 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 222 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 223 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 224 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 226 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 227 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 228 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 230 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 232 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 233 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 235 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 236 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 102 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 103 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 109 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 112 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 114 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 115 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 117 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 118 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 119 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 120 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 201 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 204 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 207 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 211 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 213 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 214 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 216 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 217 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 218 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 219 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 222 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 224 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 226 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 227 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 230 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 232 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 233 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 235 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 236 SANTA ANA CA 92705 2953 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2933 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2943 PULLMAN ST STE A SANTA ANA CA 92705 2943 PULLMAN ST STE B SANTA ANA CA 92705 1761 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 2913 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2923 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2923 PULLMAN ST STE C SANTA ANA CA 92705 2922 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2932 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2938 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2960 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2952 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 2942 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 1811 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 1801 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 1751 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 3001 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 3009 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 102 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 103 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 109 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 112 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 114 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 115 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 117 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 118 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 201 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 204 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 207 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 208 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 209 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 211 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 213 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 214 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 216 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 217 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 218 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 219 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 220 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 221 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 222 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 223 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1800 E GARRY AVE 224 SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 101A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 102A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 103A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 104A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 105A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 106A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 107A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 108E SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 109B SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 110A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 111A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 112A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 113A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 114A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 115A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 116A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 117B SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 118A SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 201D SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 202D SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 203C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 204C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 205C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 206C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 207D SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 208E SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 209C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 210C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 211C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 212C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 213E SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 214E SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 215F SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 216C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 217C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 218C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 219C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 220E SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 221D SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 222C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 223C SANTA ANA CA 92705 1820 E GARRY AVE 224D SANTA ANA CA 92705 810 E DYER RD 1 SANTA ANA CA 92705 800 E DYER RD 2 SANTA ANA CA 92705 Use Code CMSC MGOV IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC IMSC MGOV IMSC IMSC IMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC IMSC IMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC CMSC INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS GOVERNMENTAL, PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS Affidavit Regarding Community Meeting I, Brian Leung, declare as follows: 1. This declaration is made on behalf of Greenlaw Partners, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-153. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and am able to competently testify thereto. I am available, on behalf of Greenlaw Partners, to answer any questions regarding the matters discussed herein. 2. The community meeting required by Section 1-153 was held by Greenlaw Partners, in compliance with Section 2-153, on October 5, 2021 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm in an online virtual environment (Zoom Video). Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners, and at least one occupant per dwelling unit having a valid United States Postal Service address within a 500-foot radius of the project site, on September 29, 2021. 4. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and restrictions to in person gatherings, the community meeting was hosted online via Zoom. No physical notice posting at the project site was required by the City. 5. Notice of the meeting was published in the Orange County Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Ana, on September 29, 2021. 6. Meeting minutes were prepared by Kimley-Horn that provide an accurate description and summary of the meeting. 7. The meeting was conducted in an open house format, but began with opening remarks from the developer, as well as a question -and -answer session. A true and correct copy of the video of the opening remarks, including questions from the public and answers thereto were shared with the City of Santa Ana Staff Planner. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this date of October 8, 2021, at Orange, California. Brain Leung Kimley»>Horn Virtual Sunshine Neighborhood Community Meeting 1700 Garry Avenue Light Industrial Development Project Held Thursday October 5, 2021 at 6 PM (via Zoom) Hosted by: Greenlaw Partners, AO (Architects Orange), and Kimley-Horn and Associates In compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance, a community meeting was held virtually on October 5t", 2021 from 6:00 pm — 7:00 pm. Representatives from the Developer were as follows: • Derek Meddings (Greenlaw Partners) • Rob Mitchell (Greenlaw Partners) • Steve Przybylowski (AO) Representatives from the City of Santa Ana: • Ali Pezeshkpour (assigned Case Planner) Representatives of the Community: • Tim Rushmore • Leslie • Shoshin U.S.A. • Linda Matsunaga • Garry Plaza Office Park Assoc. • paper • Michael Lepore (Kimley-Horn) • Nick Chen (Kimley-Horn) • Mark • Jeni (Jeni Bilatout) • Terry's iPad • Unknown 1 • Unknown 2 Eleven members of the community attended the virtual meeting. Kimley Horn waited for additional members of the community to log into the virtual meeting before starting the presentation. The representative from AO presented an overview of the project. Several questions were written into the chat box and asked verbally during the comments and questions portion. These questions are documented below. No additional members of the community attended the event. All representatives from the City and Developer team stayed on the virtual meeting with the attendees until 7 pm. Kimley»>Horn Community Questions and Comments 1. Verbal Question: Will a traffic control device be included in the site plans to prevent trucks from passing through the new building and the neighbor building? Will there be an access point for the water drainage to run off into the Garry Avenue and not drain into the neighboring property? Verbal Response: Applicant responded that this project is still working on some of the conditions of the project for approval but will make sure that this is included in the discussion and will be considered as part of the review process. 2. Verbal Question: Why is the screening wall eight feet tall, where is it, and does it have wire on the top? Verbal Response: There will be a ten -foot decorative concrete wall facing north east of the project site. The wall is meant to screen the trucks. The rendering in the PowerPoint included a rendering of a potential future overpass. 3. Verbal Question: Are there buildings as a part of the project? How many employees are you expecting to have? Verbal Response: Yes, there will be a building, the docks have been changed so that they do not face the surrounding properties. The number of employees is currently unknown since there is no tenant right now but will be similar to an industrial type of property. From a traffic standpoint, it will be a less intensive use than what is there now. 4. Verbal Question: Concerned about the trucks clogging up the surrounding streets. Is there any way that you can restrict trucks between 4:00pm-6:00pm so that trucks are not getting in the way of current residents getting home? Response: There was an intensive traffic study done to be able to show the influx of trucks for this type of use might be coming and going and it did not show any intensive additional traffic than what was already there. If it does look like this will be an issue with a future tenant, we can sit down and see what can be done. Applicant willing to share the traffic studies. 5. Verbal Question: Are there limitations as to how many trucks or the size of trucks? Verbal Response: There is a capacity issue that the building can be able to hold. This isn't an Amazon site where there are vans and multiple trips coming in and out of the site. We do not have a tenant so there are no set hours of operation. Kimley>>> Horn Page 3 6. Verbal Question: Will you specify in the lease how many trucks per hour/day? Verbal Response: At this point in time there are no terms of the lease. There are specifications that the project is required to follow from the City which is what the project is focused on now. 7. Verbal Question: Is there any cross -lot drainage? Verbal Response: There will be no cross -lot drainage with the storm drain system. This lot will self -drain and doesn't rely on any of the properties for drainage. 8. Comment: Ali Pezeshkpour on next steps for the project. The applicant has resubmitted plans for approval to the City. The city will soon begin its environmental evaluation. Once the plans are set and the city has no more comments and the environmental documentation is complete, the project will go forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. The tenants and surrounding neighbors will receive notices of those meetings like they did for this meeting. If the Planning Commission and City Council vote to approve this project, then they will proceed with the necessary permit and plan reviews for construction permits. The applicant is aiming to have this entire process done by 2023. All key dates and updates will be posted on the website, and once dates are selected for the public meetings residents will receive a notice in the mail. Kimley»>Horn Radius notification letters: Notice mailers were distributed to nearby property owners within a 500-foot radius. Several letters were returned to the development team for several reasons, including addresses to vacant tenant offices and letters returned to sender that were unable to be forwarded. See attached Table 1 and Table 2 for complete list of returned notices. Kimley»>Horn Page 5 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Vacant Mailing Mailing Parcel First Owner Mailing Address Address Address Use Code Number Full Name City/State Zip 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 207 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 208 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1720 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 209 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 204 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 215 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 223 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1740 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 224 MISCELLANEOUS 430- 1700 E GARRY COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 171-07 AVE STE 217 MISCELLANEOUS 4100 411- HW-DYER NEWPORT MACARTHUR 92660 INDUSTRIAL 142-13 LLC BEACH CA BLVD 310 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Not Deliverable as Addressed Parcel First Owner Mailing Mailing Address Mailing Use Code Number Full Name Address City/State Address Zip 1800 E 930-01- COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT GARRY SANTA ANA CA 92705 411 MISCELLANEOUS 1801 E 930-01- COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT GARRY SANTA ANA CA 92705 411 MISCELLANEOUS Kimley»>Horn Page 6 List of Notices Returned to Sender — Attempted Not Known Parcel First Owner Mailing Mailing Address Mailing Use Code Number Full Name Address City/State Address Zip 411-142- 2907 S TECH OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 INDUSTRIAL 04 CENTER DR 939-64- 800 E DYER RD COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 002 2 MISCELLANEOUS 411-142- 2903 S TECH OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 INDUSTRIAL 02 CENTER DR 411-142- 2909 S TECH OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 INDUSTRIAL 09 CENTER DR 411-142- 2923 S TECH YEUNG SANTA ANA CA 92705 INDUSTRIAL 05 CENTER DR 430-173- 2952 DAIMLER COMMERCIAL OCCUPANT SANTA ANA CA 92705 18 ST MISCELLANEOUS Kimley»)Horn Virtual Sunshine Neighborhood Community Meeting 1700 Garry Avenue Light Industrial Development Project Held Thursday October 5, 2021 at 6pm Hosted by: Greenlaw Partners, AO (Architects Orange), and Kimley-Horn and Associates Zoom Participants • Nick Chen • Ali Pezeshkpour • Derek Meddings • SteveP • Leslie • Tim Rushmore • Unknown 2 • Shoshin U.S.A. • Linda Matsunaga • Rob Mitchell • Michael.Lepore • Unknown 2 • Garry Plaza Office Park Assoc. • Paper • Mark • Jeni (Jeni Bilatout) • Terry's iPad 1100 GAR SIGHT IND DEVELOP Tuesday October 5, 2021, from 6-7 PM FillAk, Virtual Sunshine Neighborhood Community Meeting #2 Hosted by: Greenlaw Partners, AO (Architects Orange), and Kimley-Horn and Associates Project Background Community Meeting #1 Recap Revised Project Next Steps Comments and Questions PROJECT BACKGROUND REGIONAL CONTEXT LOCAL CONTEXT EXISTING CONDITIONS ■Address: 1700 Garry Avenue ■APN: 430-171-07 ■5.13-acre site ■ 3 separate,, two-story office park buildings ■Approximately 53,000 building SF ■Primarily surface parking Typical ornamental landscaping Aerial View from South EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View from Garry Avenue, looking south toward existing office buildings EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View within parking lot, looking west toward the 1740 Garry Avenue Building EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View within parking lot, looking north toward Garry Avenue. SR-55 on the west r_ EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW Internal site view from parking lot, looking north toward 1700 Garry Avenue building EXISTING CONDITIONS - ON THE GROUND VIEW View from SR-55, looking east toward project site oygr � - �Rd �'� �.•.r�I. �� - .. I ���� � I. I'll - _� ".�� •. ilk REVISIONS TO PROJECT BUILDING ORIENTATION & BUILDING FOOTPRINT �•� GARRYAVENUE 'T.. —__— Al -'� LEGAL DESCRIPTION I� A 42,9003F� rFi IIILA: 21H<OZSF/ r >�4W<P8,9005F *5000.5F= Fk- 9�90.QSEW--- - f� F.A0.'=12.9% eOSTALL -(I'M) ,I , P i 'B si,000sF `, I LF 71, 2 p I - - ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE) a —_ I I I I I a ————�— I I4t,700SF A8,9006F PO SED t-Js"A L 6UILDIF�C — —�_915 05F_ III_ I � I I I b Door I4➢Ipa I —I —— —— t n., i . u I � s i A17ON PARKWAY gFUTURE) Original Revised --____-----x__, _---________ � .%Ol�B6IY31E'8 CJ fir% it Iq lINAAfNEIIf 15 EE anwonan .get cna t— I . T-1111—If L.«Zrz, Z, z I ENTITLEMENTS General Plan Amendment: Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to Industrial Zone Change: Professional to M1 (Light Industrial) Development Project Review _I J L �:I r1:!Q r I ,I- PROPOSM 11 JDV5TRJA L BUILD! G IF - - III-91 51DOSE- II�- I I I iii"""111 I , n OOOf - 9 —FrdQ I r--i r r r-r I — r-i r-i r-i rrr"'FEELLL r-i Mill ■IY [rAd[I � I� _• ter.. � c�arm ,wlof PITON PAMUAY iFUTUREJ 23M ----------------- tiyU�:I+ICA_5& 1 !4 I x L.0 4e-Q' T, roe- no• na •-mo- J � y % j i YRL -0F fy.n'�y. '-n•X [!Y� •}fSL�(+F min m.TM i ic`.m ,r swn .•• Y I am : r su•s mm a aurar.. ,l=wu.rrr�I-P� �•x,Z M M T!A! ri M xrfi R:+TJP I r it ��IAv'r.NT 10 BE E]FFJLIEIUK21 KALI SyOw-ohm-WE OAL F6h U"NE R WorAleo AMLM Lpc AwVFr=Lnl CONCEPT IMAGES ry �T r FREEWAY VIEW 7 ; VIEW LOOKING NORTH EAST ON 55 FREEWAY WITH F1JTU.RE AL -ON OVERPASS. F R E EWAY V I E W 2; VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST ON 55 FREEWAY WITHOUT FUTURE ALTON CNERPASS AT NEW PROPOSED BUILDING NO!'"M OF FREEWAY BILL BOARD. CONCEPT IMAGES FREEWAY VIEW 3: VIEW LOO IIN�G NORTHEAST ON 55 FREEWAY WITH FUTURE ALTON OVERPASS TO THE VIEW FROM NEIGHBOR VIEW LQOKJNG SGIJTHMEST FROM REMAINING OFFICE COMPLEX RIGHT. TO THE EAST: SECOND FLOOR T1" WARGS REAR OF NEW PROPOSED BUILDING N 0 [a no9 w i77 MOla a Rol MAE 'aw joblo -yi. '- r � �■�I w.r;'-� •,k �r�� � � Wiz^ tiIP� ' .. ';,� � i � � {,, w - r1 ==ri n --al l =_= M lll� 1 aiiiiiil'�� i I s —mil Ila �� ��®x urrrr■! 1.�� I.e�� 1■ _-. ,�= Imo.■ MATERIAL BOARD 5. ASLIRLA SOLARRAN 40 (31 1. SHERWIN WILLIAMS 2. SHERWIN WII-MkNI_. SW 6450 SW 7637 EASY GREEN OYSTER WHTE &SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7757 HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE (METAL PAINTI t� 3. 1.111.111 WIL. SW 6162 ANCIENT MARBLE WEST (NEWPORT 55 FWY) ELEVATION A. SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7018 DOVETAIL Landscape Plans FOR I. e�8HE-7 ENES 1 SHE-7 � I I 1 ■ 1 o . I --4—J I L--- � 1 I I 0 1 I o �I PROPOSED �cc J BUILDING I 1 O — I I IE I � II I {' I1 LM I 1 '1— EN Wi4EYlENfS G D_ . .I.. I 1 eEE m,Eer L2, � I E 11 � FL4 0 0 (D ALTON PARKWAY (FUTU%40 SECTION A �Al aiur.t,. io ,: �-1 -�-Ir 0 i I i� 0 0 0 LEGEND 310EWI.LK ACCESSIBLE RAMP MODULAR WETLAND PARKINGTREE SPECIMENTREE hT SfTE ENTR'4' CFaOUJ€3Fi7 TCLEA.MYT PL,WTING 1Rh3H ENCLOSURE TRANSFORMER 6' HT kEa�4T TAL --EI4CE 6 E // 0) C Cf-CORA71YE SCREEN MOLL CD ELECTFX EASEMENT NEWPROPERTYLFE E]{ISTING MONUREIlT SIGN ■ '!lIE PLANING STR� f TREE BUILDFKi ENTRY Q LTRNIS EASEMENT �1i..��J1 1IF LAIC 1PE BUFFER vG£N TREE Fill BIKEPARKJNG ,9.-NEW SURFACE PARKING STALLS ON NEIGH60RNG PROPERTY WrrH NEW SHRUB PLNYTINOADJACEN7 I i f I 8 I 11 r y long I' IN I 1��a I PROPOSED I� }6 I LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT «A„ all PROPOSED BUILDING LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT «B„ CARRY AVEN U E x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x % x x x x x x x x k x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x w x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x % X X % x % x x x X x X x X x X x X x x X x x x X x X x x x x x x X x x x x X % % % X x x x x X �-'-7( x x x x s x X x X x X x #x x % x x X x x x X it % it X x x % x % K x X X X X x X x x x% x X x X x x x x% x X x x x X x X x X x x x x% x x x x x x x % x x x X x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x % x x x x x X X x X X X M X M X x X M X X X M X X X X M X k X N X M X X x K x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x k x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x k x k x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x % x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x k x x x x x x k x x x x X k x X x x k x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Xi ix x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a xxxxxx% xXi xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx xxxx %xxx x x x x x; ti: o ;x x x x x x x x x 1, x x i j x K x Vt--r-sr-�-5c-x x• x 4 x � -w-yo+ k u PROPOSED BUILDING u LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT Plant Schedule, Hardscapes, and Site Furnishings SITE FURNISHINGS BIKE RACK MODELEMERSON BIKE RACK MFG: LANDSCAPE FORMS COLOR! FINISH: SILVER POWDER COAT HARDSCAPE �- c� viscaoas �� rm irv�vnvErvs V5 I raw,>ruewrn.eesv.. uewiuvd'.e.w.n�a. iurru,rseeur+,ream, �la�ml ww w.r�nwauu� lamr.nara seer. e.rs,vcu. I �uwT Yeltla.Sw• rellwLs fLhVralMr �wrW,rw�sar ewWtllre6ola,+A 1•VUen'r vweuwnuur mnru eeeweweeAKsrr nwweear ena NEXT STEPS • City reviews Development Review Application and plans • Environmental Review under CEQA required • Future Public Noticing and Public Hearings • Approvals and Permitting Process • Construction anticipated 2023 Comments and Questions? Contact Information DEREK MEDDINGS - (949) 331-1300 GREENLAW PARTNERS w_ The Project proposes to replace three existing office park buildings located at 1700 Garry Avenue with one new light industrial flex building. The new proposed uses total approximately 91,500 square feet total. The Project site plan has been revised since the July 8th meeting. Please attend this meeting to provide comments about this proposed development. At the meeting the project team will provide general information, answer questions and solicit input on the proposed project. WHEN: Tuesday, October 5 at 6-7p.m. WHERE: Virtual, Zoom HOW: To access the workshop please click the link below: https://bit.ly/2Y8DsoK ,�� � ��: � • ;�; „� ..�-fir. �/ `�, wtl�l� { y PROJECT SITE `. The project location and vicinity are highlighted in red. If you have questions regarding this event or you require language interpretation services in languages other than English, please contact Brian Leung (Kimley-Horn) at (714) 705-1372 - - - -m m .._.-• -. ,., .-.- . .,�.-.i...r•.-�F..-,-.T, . r-.-•t - - - r�REENLAW �- 18301 Von Karman Ave Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92612 - It 4 IF!! IIIIIIq 4 , El Proyecto propone reemplazar tres edificios de grupos de oficinas existentes ubicados en el 1700 de la Avenida Garry con un nuevo edificio de use industrial ligero y flexible. El total de los nuevos usos propuestos es de aproximadamente 9,500 pies cuadrados (8,500 metros cuadrados). Se han hecho revisiones al plan del sitio del proyecto desde la reunion del 8 de julio. Por favor asista a esta reunion para proporcionar sus comentarios acerca de este desarrollo propuesto. En la reunion, el equipo del proyecto le proporcionara informacion general, contestara sus preguntas y le pedira que proporcione sus comentarios acerca del proyecto. FECHA: Martes 5 de octubre de las 6 a las 7 pm� SITIO DEL PROYECTO LUGAR: Virtual, por Zoom , y COMO: Para obtener acceso al taller � Por favor haga clic en el enlace a continuacion: La ubicaci6n y el area del proyecto aparecen https://bit.ly/2Y8DsoK resaltadas en rojo Si tiene preguntas acerca de este evento o necesita servicios de interpretaci6n en otros idiomas ademas del ingles, por favor comuniquese con Biran Leung (Kimley-Horn) al (714) 705-1372 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU P.O. Box 54026 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90054-0026 PHONE: (213) 229-5300 FAX (213)229-5481 FEDERAL TAX ID:95-4133299 LEGAL ADVERTISING Invoice Number Date A3516000 9/30/2021 Customer Account Number 1124144961 Customer Payment Reference Special ProjecE For payment processing, please forward to: Page 1 of 1 Ordered by: KIANA GRAHAM KIANA GRAHAM KIMLEY HORN KIMLEY HORN 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD9700 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD1700 ORANGE, CA 92868 USA ORANGE, CA 92868 USA DUE UPON RECEIPT, Invoice 130 ce A3516000 172021 GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE 511.50 512s1RANGE COUNTY REPORTER $15.50 ` 11.000 Inch * 1 Ins * 3 Cols To pay online, go to adtech.dailyjournal.comlpayment PLEASE PROCESS FOR PAYMENT IMMEDIA To ensure proper credit please its your account number on vour check. Also. please detach and return this portion of the invoice with your payment. For account support, please email: Ari_Gutierrez@DailyJournal.Com or call: 2132295530. Government Advertising - Division 1124 fELY. DUE UPON RECEIPT. payment: I 51 irporatlOn Please Pav' 1124144961 Invoice Date Invoice Number Customer Number 9/3012021 A3516000 1124144961 Amount Due DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU KIMLEY HORN ATTN: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD,700 PO BOX 54026 ORANGE, CA 92868 USA LOS ANGELES, CA 90054-0026 511.50 space far filing stump ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER SINCE 1921 TOOW elephone (714N 43- SAN 027ax (7 4)542-6841 KIANA GRAHAM OR#: 3516000 KIMLEY HORN 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD3700 ORANGE, CA - 92868 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.GPJ State of California ) County of ORANGE ) ss Notice Type: GPN - GOVi PUBLIC NOTICE Ad Description: 1700 GARRY AVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SANTA ANA, county of ORANGE, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of ORANGE. State of California, under date 06120/1922, Case No. 13421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 09/29/2021 Executed on: 09/29/2021 A[ Los Angeles, California I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that he foregoing is true and correct. IIIIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII I 9 osed usetotal The Project proposes to replace three existing office park buildings located at 170 Garry Avenue with one new light industrial Flexj c sit The new prop approximately 91,500 square feet total. The Project site plan has been revised since the eneral information, answer July Bth meeting. Please attend this meeting to provide comments about this propose development. At questionis and soli�'de'mtput on the poroposed project WHEN: TuesdaYi October WBiME: Vrtua67oom ICAM: To access the workshop please click the link below; traps fsu. Iy12Y8DwK. interpietatlon services',n languages ocher rhan • e reemplazartres edifcios de grupos de ofcinas existentes ubicados en el 7 Proye1 propon drados (eseo metros 17oo de la Avenida Garry mn unaeuev`oXd�iadamente 9, 0o piesk9 aroy Flexible El total de os nuevosus os propue p t desde la reunion del 8 de julio. <uadrados). Se han hecho revisiones al plan del sitio del proyec o erca a P Pry to le prop rcionara informacion 9 neral, Par favor asista a esta reunion p ra propordonar sus comentarios a info de cite de oerol o e propueA . En la reum' el equ, o del o erca del royctou contestar5 sus Pregontas y le pedirh que Propor one sus comentanos ac P FECHA: Manes 5 de octubre de las 6 a las 7 pm .ea.,M1t rr%r-7nom _ This space (or Illing stamp only ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER SINCE 1921 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841 KIANA GRAHAM OR#: 3516000 KIMLEY HORN 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD2700 ORANGE, CA - 92868 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015,5 C.C.P.) State of California ) County of ORANGE ) ss Notice Type: GPN - GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE Ad Description: 1700 GARRY AVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELQPMENT PROJECT I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SANTA ANA, county of ORANGE, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of ORANGE,. State of California, under date 06120/1922, Case No. 13421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 09/29/2021 P�ecutetl on: 09/29I2021 At Los Angeles, California I certify {or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. The Project proposes to replace three existing once parrc ounutny, t��a.=..... ••-- Garry Avenue with one new light industrial Flex building. The new proposed uses total approximately 91,500 square feet total. The Project site plan has been revised since the July 8th meeting. Please attend this meeting to provide comments about this proposed development. At the meeting the project team will provide general information, answer questions and solicit input on the proposed project. WHM '- Tuesday, October 5 at E7p.m: WHERE: Virtual,Zdom HOW, To access the workshop. - ..please click the link below: hl t ps,Uhij.lyL2YBDr, OK thls event or you require language Interpretation services in languages otherthan _. I,n.L_..i,.,. (ie'i...lo.,.14 lat (]14)705-1372 EI Proyecto ptopone reemplazar tres ediFlcios de gruposde of dnas exls[entes ubicados en el 1700 de la Avenida Garry con un nuevo edificio de usoi o0 trial ligadradosx(ISOOlmetrose los nuevos usos propuestos es de aproximadamente 9, pies B, cuadrados). Se han hecho revisiones al plan del sitio del proyecto desde la reunion del 8 de julio. Por favor asista a esta reunion para proporcionar sus comentarios acerca de este desarrollo propuesto. En la reunion, el equipo del proyecto le proporcionarz informacion general, contestara sus preguntas y le pectin que proportion sus comentarios acerca del proyecto. FECHA Martel Sde octubre - de las 6 a las 7 pm LUGAR; Vlrtual,par Zoom acontinuad5n: �iavel�c�m,radel �w,r�waparll " https7lbit,lyl2Y8DsoK-, ree>�sm,ge s tlene prenatal ai ee estan even one II d.. P a env« moma:aaemz: del inel per favor coreauniquesec Bran Leung rgailey Hornl at(714)705-1372 #10848 9/27/2021 500' Ownership Listing 500' Occupant Listing Prepared for: 430-171-07 ORANGE CNTY TRANSPORTATION AUT 1720 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-141-05,06 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD 300 N FLOWER ST SANTA ANA CA 92703 411-142-04 WINCHESTER EQUITY GROUP LLC 3460 WINCHESTER WAY ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 411-142-07 2919 TECH CENTER DRIVE LLC 2919 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-10 SATC INC 5753 E SANTA ANA CYN ANAHEIM CA 92807 411-142-13 HW-DYER LLC 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD 310 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 430-112-07 SIXTH & VERMONT INVESTMENT CO LL 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS 2475 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 430-115-01,03 JOHN WASHER 1100 SANDPIPER DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 411-142-02 WINCHESTER EQUITY GROUP LLC 19365 COUNTRYWOOD DR YORBA LINDA CA 92886 411-142-05 YEUNG 2923 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-08 ANTHONY M CARLINI PO BOX 12649 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 411-142-11 KSDG LLC 2913 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 Kindey Horn 1100 West Town and Country, Suite 700 Orange CA 92868 411-142-03 CHUCK WU 3460 WINCHESTER WAY ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 411-142-06 YEUNG 3030 PULLMAN ST COSTA MESA CA 92626 411-142-09 DALEO ENTERPRISES PO BOX 2834 ORANGE CA 92859 411-142-12 FRZ CORP INC 2915 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-152-09 430-112-06 FIRST INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LLC GAGOS PROPERTIES LTD 2530 S BIRCH ST 1319 J ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 MODESTO CA 95354 430-114-06 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC PO BOX 11150 SANTA ANA CA 92711 430-115-02 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 15600 SAND CANYON AVE IRVINE CA 92618 430-114-07 17072 DAIMLER LLC 17072 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 92614 430-115-04 JUNE EKLUND 1121 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 430-115-05 430-171-05 430-171-07 RJV & ASSOCIATES LLC DUPLO U S A CORP ORANGE CNTY TRANSPORTATION 1167 WARNER AVE 3050 DAIMLER ST AUT TUSTIN CA 92780 SANTA ANA CA 92705 550 S MAIN ST ORANGE CA 92868 430-173-02 430-173-04 430-173-05 OPEN DOORS WITH BROTHER MAM PROPERTIES LLC WOODLEY BUSINESS PROPERTIES LLC ANDREW I 2913 PULLMAN ST 4201 PRESERVE PKWY N 2953 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80121 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-06 430-173-07 430-173-10 ALBERT HANNA MAM PROPERTIES LLC ACCORD HOLDINGS LLC 4 HUTTON CENTRE DR 500 1601 PORT STIRLING PL 19642 VISTA DEL VALLE SANTA ANA CA 92707 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-11 430-173-15 430-173-16 SCOTT A LISSOY CGMC LLC MYERS FREDERICK M TR MYERS 2922 DAIMLER ST 2932 DAIMLER ST FAMILY TR SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 19211 EDGEHILL DR IRVINE CA 92603 430-173-17,18 430-173-19 430-173-20 DAHL TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES TRITON PROPERTIES LLC GRANITE PROPERTIES LLC CONSTRU 2942 DAIMLER ST 1811 E GARRY AVE 2960 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-21 430-173-22 430-191-12 LISSOY SCOTT A THE LISSOY 1751 EAST GARRY LLC NKMAX AMERICA INC FAMILY 1751 E GARRY AVE 10 PASTEUR 2922 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 IRVINE CA 92618 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-191-13 930-01-401, 402, 403, 404, 409 930-01-405,406 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC JACK STEVENS REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC 1 EDWARDS WAY PO BOX 4009 1800 E GARRY AVE 106 IRVINE CA 92614 ORANGE CA 92863 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-406 930-01-407 930-01-408 REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC THOMAS LINDAHL TRUSTAT SAFETY & HEALTH 1800 E GARRY AVE 106 1448 CHARLESTON ST SOURCE L SANTA ANA CA 92705 TUSTIN CA 92782 1800 E GARRY AVE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-410 930-01-411 930-01-412,464 1800 E GARRY AVE LLC REGAN DISTRIBUTORS INC PACIFIC LOAN SOLUTIONS LLC 3857 BIRCH ST 195 1800 E GARRY AVE 111 2515 DUKE PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SANTA ANA CA 92705 COSTA MESA CA 92626 930-01-413, 414, 415, 416 930-01-417, 429, 432, 478, 481 930-01-418, 419, 420, 421, 422 JACK STEVENS WM STEVENS JACK STEVENS PO BOX 4009 PO BOX 5505 PO BOX 4009 ORANGE CA 92863 ORANGE CA 92863 ORANGE CA 92863 930-01-423 930-01-424 930-01-425, 427, 431, 433 - 438 DAVID KUHN FLAGSTONE PROPERTIES LLC JACK STEVENS 23265 BUCKLAND LN 1800 E GARRY AVE 206 PO BOX 4009 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 SANTA ANA CA 92705 ORANGE CA 92863 930-01-426 930-01-428 930-01-430 OCEANLINK SHIPPING LOGISTICS EHAB S SOLIMAN ULADZISLAU KANDYBOVICH 1800 E GARRY AVE 208 18529 PETERS CT 2618 SAN MIGUEL DR 295 SANTA ANA CA 92705 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 930-01-439 930-01-440, 441, 442 930-01-443, 444, 445 CHRISTOPHER TRENT JACK STEVENS DAVID C RUSHMORE 1212 AVIATOR LN PO BOX 4009 100 VIA FLORENCE TUSTIN CA 92782 ORANGE CA 92863 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 930-01-446 930-01-447 - 453 930-01-454 MELINDA WELLS JACK STEVENS RAYMOND S LEE 1835 NEWPORT BLVD A109 PO BOX 4009 25222 MAMMOTH CIR COSTA MESA CA 92627 ORANGE CA 92863 EL TORO CA 92630 930-01-455, 456, 457, 458, 466 930-01-459, 472 930-01-460 JACK STEVENS PARISA MOGHADDAM KHA INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 4009 PO BOX 17613 2102 BUSINESS CENTER DR 130 ORANGE CA 92863 IRVINE CA 92623 IRVINE CA 92612 930-01-461 930-01-462 930-01-463,465 KEYSTONE EQUITY GROUP INC AJJA INVESTMENTS LLC GREWALL LLC 2729 SATURN ST 13681 NEWPORT AVE 8 751 S WEIR CANYON RD 157 BREA CA 92821 TUSTIN CA 92780 ANAHEIM CA 92808 930-01-467 930-01-468 930-01-469 RUSSAMEL INVESTMENTS RAY NAGHIBI ELIZABETH ORTIZ 2235 E FLAMINGO RD 152 5938 TURNBERRY DR 3152 HIDEOUT LN LAS VEGAS NV 89119 BANNING CA 92220 CORONA CA 92882 930-01-470 930-01-471 930-01-473, 475, 480, 482, 483 GARRY INVESTMENTS LLC PEBBLE BEACH HOLDING LLC JACK STEVENS 1212 N BROADWAY 204 1820 E GARRY AVE 211C PO BOX 4009 SANTA ANA CA 92701 SANTA ANA CA 92705 ORANGE CA 92863 930-01-474 930-01-475, 480, 482, 483 930-01-476 AGGARWAL DEV DARSH JACK STEVENS LOUIS L LAU 40 GOLF DR PO BOX 4009 3209 E LONGRIDGE DR ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 ORANGE CA 92863 ORANGE CA 92867 930-01-477 930-01-479 930-01-484 SUNRISE REALTY LLC WADE KIRK ADDIS PHARMA TECH CORP 27702 CROWN VALLEY PKWY D4 6 ROCKROSE 1820 E GARRY AVE 224D MISSION VIEJO CA 92694 ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 SANTA ANA CA 92705 939-64-001 939-64-002 411-141-05 ZEBRA INVESTMENTS LLC 800 E DYER RD LLC VACANT 810 E DYER RD 1 3631 S HARBOR BLVD 130 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92704 411-141-06 411-142-02 VACANT OCCUPANT 2903 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-04 OCCUPANT 2907 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-07 OCCUPANT 2919 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-10 OCCUPANT 2911 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-12 OCCUPANT 2915 S TECH CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-112-06 OCCUPANT 17092 PULLMAN ST IRVINE CA 92614 430-114-07 OCCUPANT 17072 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 92614 430-115-03 OCCUPANT 1091 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 430-171-05 OCCUPANT 3050 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-05 OCCUPANT 2923 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-08 OCCUPANT 2917 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-11 OCCUPANT 2913 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-03 OCCUPANT 2905 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-06 OCCUPANT 2921 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-09 OCCUPANT 2909 S TECH CENTER DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-12 OCCUPANT 2915 S TECH CENTER DR STE A SANTA ANA CA 92705 411-142-13 411-152-09 VACANT OCCUPANT 3131 S STANDARD AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-112-07 OCCUPANT 1132 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 430-115-01 OCCUPANT 1021 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 430-115-04 OCCUPANT 1121 DURYEA AVE IRVINE CA 92614 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-114-06 VACANT 430-115-02 VACANT 430-115-05 OCCUPANT 17031 DAIMLER ST IRVINE CA 92614 430-171-07 OCCUPANT 101 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 102 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 103 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 104 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 105 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 106 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 107 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 108 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 109 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 110 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 111 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 112 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 113 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 114 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 115 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 116 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 117 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 118 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 119 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 120 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 201 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 202 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 204 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 205 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 207 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 208 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 209 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 210 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 211 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 213 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 214 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 220 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 223 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 225 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 228 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 229 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 232 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 233 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 235 1720 E GARRY AVE STE 236 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 102 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 103 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 105 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 106 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 108 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 109 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 111 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 112 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 114 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 115 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 117 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 118 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 119 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 120 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 201 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 203 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 204 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 206 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 207 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 208 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 209 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 210 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 211 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 212 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 213 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 214 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 215 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 216 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 220 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 221 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 222 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 223 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 224 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 226 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 227 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 228 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 230 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 232 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 233 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 235 1740 E GARRY AVE STE 236 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 101 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 102 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 103 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 104 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 105 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 106 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 107 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 108 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 109 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 110 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 111 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 112 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 113 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 114 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 115 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 116 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 117 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 118 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 119 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 120 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 201 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 202 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 203 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 204 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 205 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 206 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 207 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 211 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 212 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 213 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 214 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 215 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 216 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 217 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 218 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 219 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 222 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 224 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 226 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 227 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 230 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 231 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-171-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 232 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 233 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 234 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-171-07 430-171-07 430-173-02 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 235 1700 E GARRY AVE STE 236 2953 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-04 430-173-05 430-173-05 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2933 PULLMAN ST 2943 PULLMAN ST STE A 2943 PULLMAN ST STE B SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-06 430-173-07 430-173-10 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1761 E GARRY AVE 2913 PULLMAN ST 2923 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-10 430-173-11 430-173-15 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2923 PULLMAN ST STE C 2922 DAIMLER ST 2932 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-16 430-173-17 430-173-18 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2938 DAIMLER ST 2960 DAIMLER ST 2952 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-19 430-173-20 430-173-21 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2942 DAIMLER ST 1811 E GARRY AVE 1801 E GARRY AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 430-173-22 430-191-12 430-191-13 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1751 E GARRY AVE 3001 DAIMLER ST 3009 DAIMLER ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-401 930-01-402 930-01-403 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 101 1800 E GARRY AVE 102 1800 E GARRY AVE 103 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-404 930-01-405 930-01-406 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 104 1800 E GARRY AVE 105 1800 E GARRY AVE 106 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-407 930-01-408 930-01-409 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 107 1800 E GARRY AVE 108 1800 E GARRY AVE 109 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-410 930-01-411 930-01-412 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 110 1800 E GARRY AVE 111 1800 E GARRY AVE 112 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-413 930-01-414 930-01-415 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 113 1800 E GARRY AVE 114 1800 E GARRY AVE 115 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-416 930-01-417 930-01-418 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 116 1800 E GARRY AVE 117 1800 E GARRY AVE 118 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-419 930-01-420 930-01-421 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 201 1800 E GARRY AVE 202 1800 E GARRY AVE 203 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-422 930-01-423 930-01-424 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 204 1800 E GARRY AVE 205 1800 E GARRY AVE 206 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-425 930-01-426 930-01-427 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 207 1800 E GARRY AVE 208 1800 E GARRY AVE 209 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-428 930-01-429 930-01-430 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 210 1800 E GARRY AVE 211 1800 E GARRY AVE 212 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-431 930-01-432 930-01-433 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 213 1800 E GARRY AVE 214 1800 E GARRY AVE 215 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-434 930-01-435 930-01-436 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 216 1800 E GARRY AVE 217 1800 E GARRY AVE 218 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-437 930-01-438 930-01-439 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 219 1800 E GARRY AVE 220 1800 E GARRY AVE 221 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-440 930-01-441 930-01-442 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1800 E GARRY AVE 222 1800 E GARRY AVE 223 1800 E GARRY AVE 224 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-443 930-01-444 930-01-445 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE IOTA 1820 E GARRY AVE 102A 1820 E GARRY AVE 103A SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-446 930-01-447 930-01-448 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 104A 1820 E GARRY AVE 105A 1820 E GARRY AVE 106A SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-449 930-01-450 930-01-451 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 107A 1820 E GARRY AVE 108B 1820 E GARRY AVE 109B SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-452 930-01-453 930-01-454 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 110A 1820 E GARRY AVE 111A 1820 E GARRY AVE 112A SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-455 930-01-456 930-01-457 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 113A 1820 E GARRY AVE 114A 1820 E GARRY AVE 115A SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-458 930-01-459 930-01-460 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 116A 1820 E GARRY AVE 117B 1820 E GARRY AVE 118A SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-461 930-01-462 930-01-463 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 201D 1820 E GARRY AVE 202D 1820 E GARRY AVE 203C SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-464 930-01-465 930-01-466 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 204C 1820 E GARRY AVE 205C 1820 E GARRY AVE 206C SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-467 930-01-468 930-01-469 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 207D 1820 E GARRY AVE 208E 1820 E GARRY AVE 209C SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-470 930-01-471 930-01-472 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 210C 1820 E GARRY AVE 211C 1820 E GARRY AVE 212C SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-473 930-01-474 930-01-475 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 213E 1820 E GARRY AVE 214E 1820 E GARRY AVE 215F SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-476 930-01-477 930-01-478 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 216C 1820 E GARRY AVE 217C 1820 E GARRY AVE 218C SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-479 930-01-480 930-01-481 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 219C 1820 E GARRY AVE 220E 1820 E GARRY AVE 221D SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 930-01-482 930-01-483 930-01-484 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1820 E GARRY AVE 222C 1820 E GARRY AVE 223C 1820 E GARRY AVE 224D SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 939-64-001 939-64-002 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 810 E DYER RD 1 800 E DYER RD 2 SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNER/APPLICANT APPEAL APPLICATION Applicant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), represented by Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland CA 94612 Mailing Address Legal Owner Name: Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation (510 ) 836-4200 Area Code Phone No. Legal Owner Address: Phone No.: ( ) ( ) Fax: ( ) II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Land Use 3 office buildings containing a total of 105,558 square feet Professional (P) Industrial/Flex (FLEX) - 3 Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation Location 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue Garry Avenue and Pullman Street Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS III. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) For the reasons discussed in the attached comment, the October 10, 2022 decisions of the Planning Commission to approve Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the proposed Garry Avenue Business Park Project are in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The City staffs determination that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines is incorrect. An Initial Study should have been prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required, and the Planning Commission should have declined to approve the Project until after proper CEQA review was complete. See attachment. Applicant's Signature: �� Date: 10/17/2022 APPEAL APPLICATION NO. cm\cntr-frm\appeal 5/00 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. An appeal application form (Exhibit 1). 2. A letter stating the nature of the appeal (in lieu of the space provided on the appeal form). 3. The application fee. 4. Any other pertinent information that the application warrants. DRUR 7 S108364200 F 510.836-4205 Via E-mail Bao Pham, Chair Miguel Calderon, Vice Chair Eric M. Alderete, Commissioner Thomas Morrisey, Commissioner Isuri S. Ramos, Commissioner Mark McLoughlin, Commissioner Alan Woo, Commissioner Planning Commission City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 PBAecomments@santa-ana.org 1939 Harrison Street. Ste. 150 www1oXeaudrury.com Oakland, GA 94612 victoria Ciliazeaudrury.corn October 10, 2022 Ali Pezeshkpour, Principal Planner Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 apezeshkpour@santa-ana.org Re: Opposition Comment on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15183 Exemption for the Garry Avenue Business Park Project (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14); Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 Dear Chair Pham, Vice Chair Calderon, Honorable City Planning Commissioners, and Mr. Pezeshkpour: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Garry Avenue Business Park Project (Amendment Application No. 202201; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a 91,500 square foot industrial building, located at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ("Project"), which is being heard by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2022 as Agenda Item 2. The City of Santa Ana Planning Division staff have incorrectly determined that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines. After reviewing the Community Plan Exemption Checklist ("Exemption Checklist") prepared for the Project, as well as the 2022 City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report ("GPU EIR") upon which the Exemption Checklist relies, we conclude that the City's consistency determination fails to provide evidence that the Project does not require further analysis and mitigation under CEQA. In particular, the consistency Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 2 of 7 determination fails to provide evidence to support the Exemption Checklist's findings that the Project will not involve environmental effects that: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. As evidenced by the expert comments submitted by environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"), additional environmental review is required because: (1) there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and (2) the Project would result in any new significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR. SWAPE's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to demolish 105,558-square-feet ("SF") of office space and construct 81,500-SF of warehousing and distribution space, 10,000-SF of office space, and 145 parking spaces on the 5.2-acre site in the City of Santa Ana, California. LEGAL STANDARD The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214 ["Bakersfield Citizens"]; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927 ["Pocket Protectors"].) The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 3 of 7 the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration. . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three -tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1185-86 ["Hollywoodland"].) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a).) If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070.) Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report ("EIR") is required. (Id.) Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies. CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) "Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and `[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.' (Citations)." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 ("[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. (Citations.) Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents `a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.' (Citations).").) In addition, there are several exceptions to CEQA's categorical exemptions. (See, 14 CCR § 15300.2.) At least one exception is relevant here: Significant Effects. A project may never be exempted from CEQA if there is a "fair argument" that the project may have significant environmental impacts due to "unusual circumstances." 14 CCR § 15300.2(c). The Supreme Court has held that since the agency may only exempt activities that do not have a significant effect on the environment, a fair argument that a project will have significant Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 4 of 7 effects precludes an exemption. (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 204.) Here, the City has issued a notice of exemption alleging that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15183. However, as discussed below, this exemption is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR, must be prepared for this Project. DISCUSSION I. THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS PECULIAR TO THE PROJECT THAT WERE NOT ANALYZED AS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN THE GENERAL PLAN EIR AND THESE IMPACTS REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSIS UNDER CEQA Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act allows a project to avoid environmental review if it is "consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified ... except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." (14 CCR § 15183 (emphasis added).) The intention of this section is to "streamline[]" CEQA review for projects and avoid the preparation of repetitive documents. Even when a project is "consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,", environmental review is still required for various types of impacts, including those "peculiar to the project or parcel on which the project would be located," those which "were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR," "are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR," or "[a]re previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR." (14 CCR sec. 15183.) Section 1518(f) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Project's environmental effects are not peculiar to a project if "uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted" which serve to mitigate environmental impacts, "unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect." (Emphasis added). Therefore, the standard set forth by CEQA for this analysis is substantial evidence. Here, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have project - specific significant impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore must be addressed through CEQA review now. II. THE PROJECT WILL HAVE PROJECT -SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE PREVIOUS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR. Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 5 of 7 First of all, the Project's potential air quality impacts were not addressed in the previous General Plan EIR, because the air quality impacts of the Project as proposed could not have been foreseen at the time the General Plan was prepared. Emissions for the proposed Project must be modeled using a program such as CalEEMod, and project -specific input parameters must be measured against applicable thresholds. Further, a screening -level HRA must be prepared to determine the risk posed to nearby residential receptors, as well as propose mitigation as necessary. If the Project's criteria air pollutant and/or toxic air contaminant emissions exceed the relevant South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") thresholds, the Project's greenhouse gas emissions must also be modeled using a program such as CalEEMod and mitigation must be implemented if necessary. As discussed below, these considerations all represent potential project -specific significant effects that were not addressed in the previous General Plan EIR, and therefore, the City must review these impacts under CEQA. A. The Project Could Have Significant Air Quality Impacts, Requiring Additional CEQA Analysis Under Section 15183. In support of the Exemption, the City claims that the Project is not required to submit an HRA, as Mitigation Measure AQ-3 ("MM-AQ-3") included in the GPU EIR is not applicable to the Project. (See, Exhibit A, pp. 1-2.) However, as SWAPE notes, "regardless of the [Exemption Checklist] claims, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines." OEHHA released its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA. (See, e.g., "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots20l5.htm1.) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Exhibit A, p. 2.) Because "the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 12-month construction period." (Id.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from project -generated Diesel Particulate Matter ("DPM") emissions be evaluated. (Id.) An initial study and mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is needed to adequately address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly. B. The Project Will Have a Significant Health Impact as a Result of Diesel Particulate Emissions into the Air. Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 6 of 7 SWAPE analyzed the Project's emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) into the air, and the resulting impact on human health. To do so, SWAPE prepared a screening -level Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Exhibit A, pp. 3-7.) SWAPE prepared a screening -level HRA to evaluate potential health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction -related and operational TAC emissions. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening -level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 200 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 200 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, while utilizing the recommended age sensitivity factors, are approximately 71.6 in one million for infants, 103 in one million for children, and 11.5 in one million for adults. (Id., p. 6.) Moreover, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (i.e. 30 years) for Project operation and construction is approximately 188 in one million. (Id.) The cancer risks to infants, children, adults, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million, thus indicating a significant air quality impact. Because the Project will have numerous significant air quality impacts peculiar to this project, and not analyzed in the GP EIR, additional CEQA review is required. C. The Project Will Have Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts Requiring Additional CEQA Analysis Under 15183 Exemption. SWAPE analyzed Project's potential greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and found that the Project and GPU EIR failed to adequately analyze the Project's greenhouse gas impacts, which SWAPE found to be potentially significant. (See, Exhibit A, pp. 8-10.) First, the Exemption Checklist's greenhouse gas impact analysis and subsequent less - than -significant impact conclusion are based on an outdated quantitative analysis GHG threshold. (See, id., pp. 8-9.) According to SWAPE, the Exemption Checklist incorrectly "estimates that the Project would generate net annual [GHG] emissions of 1,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT CO2e/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year." (Id., p. 8.) SWAPE explains that this is incorrect because "the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020." (Id.) In addition, the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) guidance states: Comment on Garry Avenue Business Park Project Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) October 10, 2022 Page 7 of 7 [F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone. (Id., pp. 8-9 [citations omitted].) Because it is currently October 2022, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. (Id., p. 9.) As a result, the SCAQMD bright -line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the [Exemption Checklist's] less -than -significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. (Exhibit A, p. 9.) Instead, SWAPE recommends "that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year ("MT CO2e/SP/year"), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets." (Id.) To more accurately determine the Project's GHG emissions, SWAPE prepared an updated air model using the project -specific information provided by the Exemption Checklist. (See, id., pp. 9-10.) SWAPE's updated analysis demonstrates that the Project would emit approximately 14.6 MT CO2e/SP/year. (Id.) Therefore, the Project's service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the Exemption Checklist or GPU EIR. Thus, SWAPE's model demonstrates that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, which precludes reliance on the CEQA Section 15183 exemption. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission deny the applications for the Project and, instead, direct city staff to prepare the necessary environmental documents under CEQA. The City should prepare an initial study followed by an EIR or negative declaration in accordance with CEQA prior to consideration of approvals for the Project. Sincerely, Victoria Yundt LOZEAU I DRURY LLP MEMORANDUM MCT # 62772 TO: Finance & Management Services Agency Wednesday, October 19, 2022 FROM: Planning and Building Agency �aucation Isr SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Cash Transaction All fees are subject to change at any time and may also be affected by scheduled adjustments on July 1 of each year. The Payee must pay the prevailing rate at the time payment is made. PROJECT NAME: New Warehouse/Industrial Building MASTER ID #2021-166019 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1700 E Garry Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705-5802 AP #430-171-07 Application # APPL-2022-1-APC Permit # ISSUED TO: Michael Lozeau ADDRESS: 1939 Harrison Street, Ste 150 Oakland, CA 94612 ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY UNIT RATE AMOUNT FUND NO. 1 Appeal (Non -Applicant) 1.0000 $472.00 $472.00 01116002 53606 Comments: Created via Planning Invoice process Issued By: web_plpay (Planning and Building Agency) NOTES: For payment to be considered complete, a Miscellaneous Cash Transaction (MCT) must be paid in full. TOTAL MCT AMOUNT: $472.00 GL Account # Total 01116002 53606 $472.00 Page 1 of 1 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 Comment 1: This comment states that the City has incorrectly determined that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and that the City's consistency determination fails to provide evidence that the Project does not require further analysis and mitigation under CEQA. The comment asserts that additional environmental review is required because: (1) there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and (2) the Project would result in any new significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR; and since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required. Response 1: The comment is introductory in nature, provides general comments, and does not include any substantial evidence relating to any environmental impact that requires preparation of additional CEQA documentation or that would require changes to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Community Plan Exemption Checklist. No further response is warranted. Comment 2: This comment provides a summary of the proposed Project and legal case law text general regarding CEQA requirements and states that the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies, and that a project may never be exempted from CEQA if there is a "fair argument" that the project may have significant environmental impacts due to "unusual circumstances." In addition, the comment states that the exemption for the proposed Project is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR, must be prepared for this Project. Response 2: The comment is introductory in nature, provides general comments and CEQA exemption information, and does not include any substantial evidence relating to any environmental impact and the proposed Project that requires preparation of additional CEQA documentation or that would require changes to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Community Plan Exemption Checklist. No further response is warranted. Comment 3: This comment states that the Project will have significant impacts peculiar to the Project. The comment provides text related to exemptions from CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and states that there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have project specific significant impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore must be addressed through CEQA review now. Response 3: The comment is general in nature, provides general comments, and does not include any detail related to the CEQA document prepared for the Project or substantial evidence relating to new or increased environmental impacts. No further response is warranted. Comment 4: This comment states that the Project will have project specific significant effects that were not addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. The comment states that the air quality impacts of the Project as proposed could not have been foreseen at the time the General Plan was prepared, and that emissions for the proposed Project must be modeled using a program such as CaIEEMod, and project -specific input parameters must be measured against applicable thresholds, and that a screening -level HRA must be prepared to determine the risk posed to nearby residential receptors, as well as propose mitigation as necessary. The comment states that this represents potential project -specific significant effects that were not addressed in the previous General Plan EIR, and therefore, the City must review these impacts under CEQA. Exhibit 13 Page 1 of 7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 Response 4: The comment is inaccurate. The GPU EIR analyzed buildout of the GPU, which includes development of the Project site consistent with the designation of FLEX-3 that allows a FAR of 3.0 and building heights up to 10-stories and uses including warehousing, office -industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research, and development. As detailed on page 2 of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist, the Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is substantially less than the analysis of the GPU EIR that evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. As such, the GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project and identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project. The Project was modeled using CAIEEMod to evaluate both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, as detailed in the Community Plan Exemption Checklist on pages 34 through 39 and pages 59 and 60, which showed the emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (page 61). Also, as described on page 36, the GPU EIR determined that the HRA related risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD would be implemented by Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which details that projects that have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered transport refrigeration units, and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use may result in an impact and would require a health risk assessment (HRA). The proposed Project would only generate 44 non -refrigerated truck trips per day, which is less than the 100 trips that would have the potential to result in an impact. This is consistent with the CARB published document Air Quality Land Use Handbook. A Community Health Perspective' (April 2005) that provides a screening threshold of 100 heavy diesel trucks (one-way) or 200 (two-way) truck trips for potential impacts to occur. Further, the closest residence to the site is approximately 2,200 feet from the Project, which is farther than the 1,000-foot setback recommended by the South Coast AQMD. Thus, the proposed Project was reviewed and determined to not have the potential to result in project -specific significant effects. A screening -level Health Risk Assessment is therefore not necessary for this Project. Comment 5: This comment states that construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The comment also states that the OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks, and that it is reasonably assumed that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from project - generated Diesel Particulate Matter ("DPM") emissions be prepared and that an mitigated negative declaration be prepared to mitigate impacts accordingly. Response 5: The South Coast AQMD does not currently require health risk assessments for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Instead, South Coast AQMD has promulgated a specific methodology for analysis of localized impacts from construction to nearby sensitive receptors as an indicator of potential health risk. The LSTs are the amount of project -related construction emissions at which localized pollutant concentrations would exceed State air quality standards. Additionally, LSTs are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf Exhibit 13 Page 2 of 7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 respiratory diseases. As shown on page 39 of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist, maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the screening -level LSTs, and impacts would be less than significant. As described in Response 4, the GPU Update EIR provided screening level mitigation to implement the risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD for potential DPM related operational impacts; and the Project would generate 44 non -refrigerated truck trips per day, which is less than the 100 unrefrigerated truck trips that would have the potential to result in an impact. Thus, no further evaluation of DPM emissions is required. As no potential new or greater impact would result, a mitigated negative declaration is not required. Comment 6: This comment states that SWAPE prepared a screening -level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction -related and operational TAC emissions. The comment states that SWAPE used AERSCREEN and applied a sensitive receptor distance of 200 meters (656 feet) and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors and found that the cancer risks to infants, children, adults, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million, thus indicating a significant air quality impact. Response 6: The DPM evaluation that was completed for the GPU EIR, which identified Mitigation Measure AQ-3, that was implemented for the Project provides the appropriate evaluation of the Project pursuant to SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology, which determined that potential health impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant because the Project would result in less than 100 truck trips per day and residences are located approximately 2,200 feet from the Project, which is farther than the 1,000-foot setback recommended by the SCAQMD. The AERSCREEN model is widely acknowledged (including by the US EPA)2 as being overly conservative. AERSCREEN only produces worst -case scenario health risk impacts, without considering local meteorology and terrain, i.e. site -specific information, such as spatial relation, geography, or local meteorology. Therefore, the air quality model used by the commenter does not accurately identify risks of the Project and is not consistent with SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Comment 7: This comment states that the use of the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold is outdated because its past 2020 and that thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target, and states that the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets. Response 7: The commenter is incorrect in the implied assertion that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on the year 2020 statewide GHG reduction target under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and that it is an outdated threshold. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for development projects is based on a market capture approach and is not directly tied to a GHG reduction plan, such as CARB's Scoping Plan. In general, the threshold was developed based on a review of 711 projects in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects in the 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, AERSCREEN User's Guide, April 2021 Exhibit 13 Page 3 of 7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 South Coast AQMD's jurisdiction. The threshold was set based on a 90 percent capture rate, which came from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's 2008 white paper, "CEQA and Climate Change."3 Based on the review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would not exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr.411 This threshold is used by many lead agencies in the South Coast AQMD region to identify GHG emissions impacts. In addition, the use of a modified 2035 threshold of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/yr), is generally based on the statewide GHG reduction target established for year 2020 under AB 32. It is derived from the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for "land use only" GHG emissions sectors divided by the 2020 statewide employment for the land use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric.' In the court ruling under Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego / Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 892, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal generally ruled against use of efficiency -based thresholds that are based on a statewide inventory because they do not have enough of a nexus or connection to new development projects. Comment 8: This comment states that SWAPE prepared an updated air model using the project - specific information provided by the Exemption Checklist that determined the Project would emit approximately 14.6 MT CO2e/SP/year, which exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the Exemption Checklist or GPU EIR, which precludes reliance on the CEQA Section 15183 exemption. Response 8: As detailed in Response 7, the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold is used by many lead agencies in the SCAQMD region to identify GHG emissions impacts, and the California Fourth District Court of Appeal generally ruled against use of efficiency -based thresholds. Also, CEQA gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, how to assess potential GHG impacts. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.) The options specified include analyzing against applicable numerical thresholds, such as South Coast AQMD's. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 112 [recognizing that using a numerical threshold from an air pollution control district was a permissible option that complied with CEQA].) Likewise, the CEQA Guidelines identify qualitative analyses as appropriate methods. Here, the Community Plan Exemption Checklist uses two methods to assess whether the Project's GHG emissions should be considered significant: (1) comparing against the SCAQMD's numerical threshold and (2) a qualitative analysis of the Project's consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, the City's GPU, and the Santa Ana 3 California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association, "CEQA and Climate Change," white paper, January 2008, http://www,ca pcoa.org /w p-content/u p I oads/201 2/03/CAP COA-White-P a pe r. pdf a South Coast Air Quality Management District, "GHG Meeting 14 Main Presentation," Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, November 19, 2009, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default -source/ceqa/hand book/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega-significance-thresholds/yea r-2008-2009/ghg-meeting -1 4/ghg-meeting- 1 4-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Agenda for Meeting 15," Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, September 28, 2010, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default -source/ceqa/hand book/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/yea r-2008-2009/ghg-meeting -15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 'South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Minutes for Meeting 15," GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group, September 28, 2010, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Minutes for Meeting 15," GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group, September 28, 2010, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Exhibit 13 Page Aof7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 Climate Action Plan. Because the Project would not exceed the applicable threshold, it would not have a significant GHG impact; and the evaluation concluded that the Project would be consistent with the applicable plans. Thus, the GHG analysis in the Community Plan Exemption Checklist is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA. Comment 9: This comment requests that the Planning Commission deny the applications for the Project and, instead, direct city staff to prepare the necessary environmental documents under CEQA. The City should prepare an initial study followed by an EIR or negative declaration in accordance with CEQA prior to consideration of approvals for the Project. Response 9: The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist and does not provide any substantial evidence of a potential new impact related to the Project. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Project's staff report. Comment 10: This comment provides a summary of the Project description and states that the Project's health risk and GHG have not been adequately evaluated and emissions have been underestimated and that an EIR should be prepared to assess and mitigate risks. Response 10: The comment is introductory in nature, provides general comments, and does not include any substantial evidence that impacts related to health risks or GHGs would occur. As detailed in previous responses, the Community Plan Exemption Checklist details that pursuant to agency recommendations and the City's GPU EIR, impacts related to health risks and GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur. Comment 11: This comment is consistent with Comment 5, previously. Response 11: Refer to Response 5. Comment 12: This comment provides the details of the screening -level HRA and the AERSCREEN modeling, such as exposure assumptions, risk formulas, described in Comment 6. The comment states that it provides downwind at 200 meters the Project would result in risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold; and thus, is a potentially significant impact and a refined health risk analysis is required. Response 12: As detailed in Response 6, the AERSCREEN model is widely acknowledged as being overly conservative and produces worst -case scenario health risk impacts, without considering appropriate dispersion and other factors. Therefore, the air quality model used by the commenter does not accurately identify risks of the Project and is not consistent with SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Further, the Project is less than significant as less than 50 percent of 100 truck trips per day would occur and residences are located approximately 2,200 feet from the Project, which is farther than the 1,000-foot setback recommended by the SCAQMD. Exhibit 13 Page 5 of 7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 Comment 13: This comment provides text from the Project's staff report and states that the subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183, as the Project's GHG analysis is insufficient because the GHG analysis relies upon an outdated quantitative GHG threshold, and the analysis fails to identify a potentially significant GHG impact. Response 13: As detailed in Response 7, the appropriate threshold was utilized in the Community Plan Exemption Checklist, as utilized by many lead agencies in the SCAQMD region. Also, as detailed in Response 8, CEQA gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, how to assess potential GHG impacts. The analysis in the Community Plan Exemption Checklist does not identify a GHG impact because the emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the identified threshold. Comment 14: This comment is consistent with Comment 7, previously. Response 14: Refer to Response 7. Comment 15: This comment is consistent with Comment 8, previously. Response 15: Refer to Response 8. Comment 16: This comment states that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. The comment lists various several mitigation measures from the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document. Response 16: As detailed in previous responses, the Project would not result in potentially significant health risk or GHG impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, many of the suggested measures listed in the comment would be implemented in consistency with the CALGreen Building Code, CARB requirements, SCAQMD Rules, which would be verified by the City during the Project permitting process. Comment 17: This comment states that the previously listed measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. The comment states that an EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. Response 17: As detailed in Response 16, the Project would not result in potentially significant health risk or GHG impacts, and no mitigation measures or EIR are required. However, many of the suggested measures would be implemented pursuant to existing regulations, which would be verified by the City during the Project permitting process. Comment 18: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. The Exhibit 13 Page 6of7 City Response to Comment Letter Lozeau Drury, dated October 10, 2022 comment also states that the comments reflect efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Response 18: The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment 19: Attachments A through D: These attachments to the comment letter provides multiple CalEEMod model runs used to substantiate the comments provided and responded to above and provides resumes of SWAPE professionals who provided the SWAPE comments. Response 19: This comment provides modeling used to substantiate the previous comments, which were responded to above and provides resumes for the individuals who provided the technical comments from SWAPE. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. Exhibit 13 Page 7 of 7 Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza N.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNER/APPLICANT Applicant Garry Plaza Office Park Association CLERK OF 11141'VE COUNCIL OCT 17122pi 14 Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation 673-1161 Melinda Luthin Law, 2721 East Coast Highway, suite 201, Corona del Mar, CA 92626 (949 ) Mailing Address Area Code Phone No. Legal Owner See attached Legal Owner Address: 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone No.: (949) 673-1161 II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Fax: ( Land Use Professional Offices P Flex-3 Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation Location 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue Pullman Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS III. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) See attached Applicant's Signature: / ��,� � P. c a. M 2� Date: October 17, 2022 APPEAL APPLICATION NO. cmlcntr-hr mappeal 5100 MELINIDA, LUTHIN I LAW October 17, 2022 Personal Delivery Santa -Ana City Council Clerk 2 Re: Appeal: Planning Commission's purported Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the Garry Avenue Business Park at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue APPELLANT Appellant Gary Plaza Office Park Association ("GPOPA") is the association for the business condominium project located at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 ("GPOP"), This property is located next door to 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue, the property subject to the CUP being appealed ("Subject Property"). The members of GPOPA are the owners of the eighty-four (84) GPOP condominiums. APPELLANT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP Each owner of a GPOP condominium also owns a 1/84"' interest in the real property located at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 and owns a 1184 interest in an easement that traverses around the perimeter and throughout and across the interior of the Subject Property. BASIS FOR APPEAL The Planning Commission had no authority to issue the CUP because not all record owners of all interests in the Subject Property joined or approved the application. Specifically, the owners of the 84 GPOP business condominiums own an undivided interest in ingress and egress easements that traverse across the Subject Property. (See Easement attached). As such, each of these owners are interest holders until or unless they join in the application or sell their interests to the owners of the Subject Property. The City may not grant a permit that interferes with the rights of the easement holders. 2. The CUP proposes to obliterate easements that serve and are for the benefit of the Gary Plaza Office Park, including but not limited to drainage easements and utility easements (attached). The City may not grant a permit that negatively affects the rights of adjacent landowners nor may it grant a permit that interferes with the rights of the easement holders. 3. The City refused to permit members of the public, including Gary Plaza Office Park Association to view the CUP application, in violation of the Public Records Act, and in contravention of City policy and procedures, including the City rule regarding inspection stated in the Planning Commission Agenda. It is impossible to determine if the CUP Appeal of Decision of Santa Ana Planning Commission Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 October 17, 2022 Page 2 application contained all necessary information or even if it was filed by the property owner or the owner's authorized agent. As such, all bases for this appeal may not be included herein, and GPOPA reserves the right to augment'this appeal after the City provides GPOPA with a copy of the application, either voluntarily or by means of a judicial writ of mandamus. 4. The Planning Commission approved an application not contained in the agenda packet. 5. The Planning Commission approved an application it appears not to have reviewed. 6. The Planning Commission's approval of the CUP violates Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-630, et seq. 7. Identity of the applicant for the CUP is uncertain. It appears that the applicant is not qualified to apply for a CUP, per Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-633. The owner of record of 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue ("Subject Property") is Gary Owners, LLC. The applicant has been identified as various persons and/or entities, none of which appear to be the record owner. 8. The Planning Commission approved a CUP for use of land not permissible in land zone P. (Santa Ana Muni. Code, § 41-313.5,) 9. The Planning Commission resolution approving the CUP contains false statements as to the identity of the owner. (Resolution, § LA.) 10. The CUP was approved without a proper CEQA evaluation or environmental review. 11. The Planning Commission approved a CUP for use of land not permissible in the General Plan. 12. The Planning Commission approved a CUP without making the necessary findings. (E.g. Santa Ana Muni Code, §§ 41-638, 41-639.) 13. The Planning Commission approved the CUP without malting a proper motion. 14. The Land use is not compatible with the General Plan. 15. The proposed use for which the CUP issued: a. WILL NOT provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood or the community; b. WILL be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and Appeal of Decision of Santa Ana Planning Commission Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 October 17, 2022 Page 3 C. WILL adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; d. WILL NOT comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41 for such use; and e. WILL adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. 16. The conditionally permitted use does not comply with the yard, height, area, off-street parking, loading, sign and operational standards set forth for the district in which said use is proposed to be located. 17. The CUP does not identify the specific use of land that is permitted. 18. The Staff Report and Planning Commission agenda packet referred to "Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14," but no copies of this CUP were made available to the public, so it is impossible to know what the Planning Commission was considering. 19. The Planning Commission claims that it "approved," Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14, but no motion was made to approve such CUP. 20. The Planning Commission claims that it "approved," Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14, but the Planning Commission appears to have only the resolution adopting the CUP but not the proposed CUP itself. Since the Planning Commission did not have any copies of any such CUP, it could not approve a document not before it. 21. The Planning Commission claims that it "approved," Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14, but the Planning Commission agenda packet did not contain a copy of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14, and therefore the public did not have the opportunity to review or view what the Planning Commission was considering or what it purportedly approved. Yours truly, q Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of MELINDA LUTHIN LAW Attorneys for Gary Office lark Association wary RECOMUGD Alnrc •ra: "{ Bl I2408PG 198 a0nDINe ItJtla:fl'ar X11 V6•SECIelIC:Y �'N,C0AbE0 IN OFFICIAL' REMUS ttE OP OOANOE COUNTY. CALIFOPNIA R,P6L91ED HYlr, 0, anx 2460 Nrewl"rt Rena,, ca. 921660 "M ao AM OCT 71977 �7.oD 9, SYYtIE CAALYIC, 4000y 2ecmtlar ItELLC:I F?ROCAl, FA3Et•11it4T AC31iliEtriF_MT NP THIS AGREEMENT, male and entered into this day of GuptRmbor, :1977, by and between DUE, INC., a corporation ("DVM"3, and CI. O. RODEFLER and PHYLLIS H. RODEF6'ER (collec.- t:i..vc:].a "Pvdmfter"). R E C S T A L a A. DVM is the tee owner of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this ref..eve.ncn made a Part hereof and referred to as the "Par.oel A Property". The Parcel. A Property has been improved with certain building thereon and other areas thereof constitute roadways, re Eerred to as Lhe "Parcel A Roadway Areas", B. lodof.Cer is rho tee owner of the real prop- erty deser.i.bed in Exhibit "M attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, referred to herein aS the -Parcel H Property", which proger•tY is Presently unimproved but which may In LAP, future be improved. At such time as the Parcel E Property in improved it will have certain road- way areas which are referred to herci:n as "Parcel E Roadway Areas", C. Parcels A and EI adjoin each other and each Parcel contains cz will, contain roadway areas Pr Ovi.dlMl access across such Parcell for the benefit of the other' Parcel to certain public streets. D. The parties h0w0te intend to Cxeate e.'LEemenV;S for the benefit: of each other over the premises owned by the other Carty'. WOW, 'THEREFORE, THU PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS! 1. in consida+ratien of the sum of One Dollar lsl.00! and other good and valuable consideration received by DUN from Rod O.ifer, HUM hereby grants and demises to RodOtfer, ld. BX 12408Pt 199 their successors and asligvs, and to the tenants, employees: and invitees using ary portion of Parcel & On easement for the purpose of Kgroso and egress over and on the Parcel A Roadway Areas located Upon Parcel A. 2. in consideration of the sum of one Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration received by Rodeffer from M, RodWer hereby grants and demises to ov, its successors and assigns, and to the tenants, employ_ sea and inviLor,G using any portion or Parcel 0, an easement for the purpose of ingress and egress over and on the Parcel B Roadway Areas as Ultimately located following completion of Improvements upon Parcel B. upon request from the then fee owner of Parcel B or any parson providing any loan with respect Hereto, DVM Will MOCULS such quitclaim dead at Medo as may be necessary on desirable to quitclaim any right, title or interest to any portion of Parcel B except that portion specifically denignated as a Parcel B Roadway Area upon a plan or plans for dwvu3opmnnt of Parcel B. 3. The covenants, terms and conditions met forth herein are binding upon and inure Co the benefit of ito parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns, IN WITNESS WEERECT, the parties hereto have exe- cuted thin Agreement the day and year first above written. DvM' INC— a corporation By '4cs' (SBAL) -- - ?L N. �LKIE;�F*"Rodaf Ears" -2- I BA 12408P6 200 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On :�ep.tembi.r 29 , 1977, before me, the Under- signed, a Notary Public rn and for said Country and State, personally appeared William J. Carden known to ns Co be the _ ., President, and ��......__...._._. James A. Resaw Rown to me to bs the ._._..�_.—__ _._._ d'._....-... ._..._._...__. 5eareirary o U M, 3'NC., i:tt<. corporation that executed t}ie w.ithim instrument, known to me to be the persons who exe- cuted such instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to the t.bat said corporation executed such instrument in accordance with its by-laws or, a :resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and o£fici:al, seal. xY,%55�c+.nxY%a^d6°..'uv.tss+; aPcic nz x.t r , sr.o� clErrti a vJ2,c IeR I „�,. I `'•;�lild�i+`"� a(Piee `�%� w C'Or tmu:uoiu ongxcC E,see, vnana, prAn+ I9 CJtFir a 1p na.i Aunty and nd state kla-+.rtxaSaCuaay,'Rm�'xt�r::�'fi5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 J ss. COUN21YOF ) Or. .,"aeG4emlwc..38, 1977, before me, the under- signed, a Notary public in and fox• said County and Stage, personally appeared E. O, RODF.F2'F,:R and PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within .instrument., and acknowledged that they nxecuted the same. WITNESS my hand and official. seal. J or-m�ctri, su.nt. �:r..=yLc�.t 1:"�) a•�"'1--'' ."--_ Story Yib1a< zn uad .Cos r Viarfrad M Ln hoods f. WINIPRED #. IA LD00G noIs, r�aa,aanuPawnrruasd Counry al ct �tAtC°a1tlnTPA, O,w_ r,don Dplfu WWI 26, Ign -a` Es BY, 12408P6 201 LTFhL. AE —SC I i OT Lq N— EMN-LA. PROPERTY That. J"tjon of P.V'01' 1 and ✓, in the CICY Of Santa An%, roVilty of Orange, .state of ("Aliforala, rQ,`oxdpd in Pock 32 rega ?0 of Parcel M-P-1 xar.•ar"a of said County, dencxibad an fo BwxRmT.w 4L the cost voutherl., corner Ar of 41.1ta Parcel 11 thence North 40. ,37' 30" P,'astt 177.E7 feet a-10M the line of oald P11102 11 than". North 49- 22' 30" What, 61,34 'FeOrl thenrc, North 4- 22' 30' Wcact, 25,00 feet,, thence north 40° 37' 30" Nast, 10-33 f-QW tivoco enrth 49* 22' 30" Weet, 32,00 feet, th,,oa Plotic 4V 37' 30" LaSt, 246,00 full: to a Polat 'n the 80"th"Ot""' y lane of Garry Avenue,- thOl's 0211117 ,&dd fi(nitj)wsho,ty line North 49° 22' 30" West, 329-59 feet to file b.vinnifln Of a tangent curve concave easterly and having N raelt, of 87.00 fea t, northerly along said curve throng) a clan Y.xal angle of 94- 44- 47" an arc dIvUll1le clC 143,87 fhati thenve .Booth 45. 22, 22" What, 376.66 Year? thence 501101 90' -In, 521, west 170.34 laotl tholla South 48- 42' 531, ,act, 350,0,7 coe, th,,,a South 44- 37' 29" East 209.27 feet to the POTNT OP nflvxhmyw. ur 8x 12408PG 202 M—CILL —01-MM—PT100 M-WEI LFYLO-PVRIT That poXtlon of pare, C f -1., 2 and 3 3n the City of Santa Ana, County r Orange, step,., of Calieorn.ta, 49 ah'Wn on a MP 111-11x1led in took 32 Page 10 of Parcel Map„ x0corde of sald County, 111,11ibod as 'Fallo"al BEGrMUM at the 991st sn'therZy corn,, of said pnronj 3, thence North 49° 22' 30" West, 404,13 feet 11119 thesnuthwastar.tg fine of Sold pa,,ol, 2 end 3 thane earth 4- 22' 30,, Wat., 25.00 fact, thence North 40- 37' 30" East, 11-33 fl&Otl rion—e North 49" 22' 30" West, 32, 90 foot, thence North 40- 37' 30" Nast, 246.00 feet. to a gj,L in thesoul:hwesterigline of Garry Avsauo, thance along said ,autnwestaryy 11n. south 49° 22' 30" Gant, 430,00 feel.- to the beginning of A tangent carve reneave veteply and having a resins of 27X0 fact; thence thm 001 00 An arc diotanev u,herj�y along said vor" . _11gh a o 900 central a�qja of of 42.42 Xawti thence South 40- 37' 30, West, 239.24 feet to the begirmIng of a tangent nerve C,,naveorth,goatoily and having a Jad-106 Of 270-00 feet' thane., C,.Utjl 21' svostp �rjy along said curve trhMVqh a Central angle 0 06' 39" an are dial,nm, of 72.97 foot to rho POYNT OF VNO-rNaX07- uploxf 1W. Im E D DOCU . asc*aDxNG aspTresTaD sr • "SOUMMIN CALIPOOM OX90 COMPANY WHOR RaON ORD HUL TO 6ouTm= cuivoma I. KOW COMPANY P.O. Dos 410 LONG DEACN, CA 90001 ATTN, VAL PROP. DBPT„ LANs are, WORNO REQUESTED By MOT AMSUCAN Wa INS, M �j7' { lIJ Tlj MOMOM W 0WWL RFAOMM OP OPANOB OOWTY, CAUFORM 4:00 DE0221987 _ .-...--.—SAM ARM Vas LINE FOR NEMWIS """ WMeD FULL VALVE Of PROPER0040m ON NLL VALUE LM LENS AND 0101 PIHCES ROWNINO At FIRE OF SW.E, y := SMWVfC69&WA OETEAmR IPA A 1( Location; City of Santa Ana 'A,P,N. 430-171-07 GRANT OF EASEMENT UX MOBILE NONE PARTNERS OF CALIFORNIA, LTD„ a California limited partnership, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, its successors and assigns, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), an easement and sight of way to construct, operate, use, maintain, alter, -add to, reconstruct, enlarge, repair., renew, replace, inspect, improve, relocate, and/or remove, at any time and from time to time, electrical sa3y'stems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as "systems") consisting of wood and/or single tubular steel poles, guy wises and anchors, crossarms, wires, conduits, vaults, handholes and *that fixtures and appliances, with necessary Appurtenances, both overhead, with reference to Strip i only and underground, with reference to Strip 1 and Strip 2, for conveying electric energy to be used for light, boat, power, and for transmitting intelligence by electrical means and/or other purposes, in, under, on, over, along and across that certain real prOPerty in the county of Orange, State of California, described as1ollowai That portion of Parcel l as shown On parcel Map filed in Hook $6, page 36 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying within a strip of land 25,00 Peet wide, the Southeasterly line of said strip of land being described as followaT BEGxNNING at a point in the centarlino of Alton Avenue, said paint being South 49" 21' 05" East, $0,00 fact, from a found 2 inch iron pipe with call, tagged °L.S, 32460, accepted as the intersection of said centerline of Alton Avenue and the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, said point also being North 49" 21' 05" west, $04..34 feet, measured along said centerline of Alton Avenue, from a found 2 1/2 inch Brass Cap Monument marked "L..S. 3246" in hnndwou sat at the .center line. intersection of Alton Avenue and Daimler street, per Tract No.. 6636 recorded in Book 256, POgas 20 and 31 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Count Recorder of said Count Fl thence North 40" 30' 52" lost, 190 % feet; thence North 43 00' 37" East, 96.67 fact; thence North 45" 22' 22" East, 267.72 feet to a found spike and washer accepted as a point in the Northwesterly Prolongation Of the centerline of Carry Avenue, said Point bears North 49" 22' 30" West, 820,36 feet from a found spike sad washer set at the conternntersection of Garry parcel Map filed in Bookn56 Pao 36iofeParScel treet Maps ue and shownonsaid RN 49 PW. WO Document Number: 19870705406 Page: 1 of 3 e .. M�a Brant of Easement mobile Some Partners of California, Ltd., a California limited partnership, t0 s,C.H.Co. a Corp. Serial No. 50682A STRIP x: That portion of parcel i as shown on Parcel Map filed in Book 56, page 36 of parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying Northwesterly of the hereinbefore described Strip 7 and southeasterly of the following described line: BROn M1NG at the intersection of a line parallel with and $0.00 feet Notthwastarly, measured at right angles, from the Southeasterly line of the herainbefore described Strip 1 and the Northeasterly tine of said Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 56, page 36 of parcel Maps; thence South 306 44' 39" West, 216.61 feet, to a point in the Northwesterly line of the hareinbefora described strip 1. Grantor retains the right to gas, to the extent such age is not inconsistent with Grantee's use, the surface area and the areas above and below the surface of the easement in such manner as Grantor shall deem Proper, including but not limited to, use of the Property as a parking lot. Grantor hereby also grants to grantee, its successors and assigns, and its and their contractors, agents and emPicyeea, the right of free access to said systems and every Part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of axarcisiug the rights herein granted, and the right to clear and to keep clear the above described real property, gram from explosives, buildings, oguipment, brush, combustible material and any and all other obstructions of any kind, and the right to trim or remove any tree Or ,shrub which, in the opinion of Grantee, may andaegar said aystams, or any part thereof, or interfere with the exercise of the rights herein granted. ERECGTEB this day of19,K6.... MB1LR 110M PARTNERS OF CAX,RN1A, LTB. gerieYal PartnaX ..•.ace -balmy general partner DTLLA MAMAGEMHNT COmPUZ, a California corporation By yes Out By Secretary GEN=" PARTNRR Document Number: 19870705406 Page: 2 of 3 i � •1� Grant of Basement Mobile name partners of California, Ltd., a California limited partnership, to S.C.E.CO. a Corp. Sorial No. 58682A STATE OF CALIVORNIA ga. COUN°.fY of �) on this — day of -- , 14_...,., before me, a Notary public in slid for aald state, personally appeared Clinton L. Asher, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenae) to be a general partner of the limited partnership that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such limited partnership executed the saws. wITNESS my hand and official goal. STATE 00 CALITORNIA aR. COUNTY OF ,py On this day of _„_.y°+ Ip u, before me, a Notary public in and for said State, perOonally appeared dames S. Taylor, personally knows to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be a general paztner of the limited and acknowledged to partnership 4teteitininstrument em ateaub united d hexecuted haaa STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OE ) Be. rr On Chia day ri netery public in to me go .tne aaaaa V& and r proved to me on to _ (or proved to me an. the person who executed corporation, said corporatl to me on the basis of anti of limited r thh0% wleogedto at partner and that Ouch party aEaaeano[asox u hy. Wrbsa Nhl �N' fYyln n<w tro. �n •, •••• =019 Of 6/,PI r' ee,[ ._, 1p.,v` and for said state, pOrsonally appeared r personally known to me, (or proved 'nctory evidence) to be the president, , personally known to me has a Of satisfactory evidence to twiithin instrument arof Villa sand Spey onally, known s basic of satisfactory evidence) to be within instrument on behalf of said being personally known to me (or proved artory evidence) to be a general partner hat Oseouted the within instrument and corporation,Ozeauted...the_ Rama as such .fig„ nWAMItnd the same. wiTNBSS my hand and official weal, .:. ppSMNI' SEAL a CABBIE a. Sattl'caEL � Y ,�'l4n s�t Nolary PWlk-CdBmun I WafJlOEUia COUNfY ANa�W,, aw. Msr. iA.l4m/ —3— ,. , Document Number: 19870705406 Page: 3 of 3 T 9030 ecct975,1 coat ae 4'l,^�s PESOWIION Q,K. P OWnON G` pRSCRII'110N A UM-0!P WA NO. n"'I"' NO assttvrencc i< cn[cPRo ox 120-Og0-;iA OF 19'f PM 562 6y } PLACG nnCUMPNTAPY STAMPS IN THIS SPACE .PF t 1 [feed hN, i_wailj±X,P�a P, C. RODY.MH and PHY1XIV M. RO,Uff'PILB, husband only vise, as their F!aTtTi.y ynui t.y ............ haab .......... . .. ........ ... ........_........ ......... FOR A VALUABLECON5yDPRATYCIN, Tacalpt of .vhlah it haraby aahna,Rladgad, DA..... .-- Hamby Crnni To 'fhe City of Scala rim, a Aiunlalpal CmluRmnon the mat pra ltny in the City 'If 5'llnln Ana County Of ;Omega , Slam of CRIi(nrnin, d.... ibad at PollowaI AN 66aement for robin ar,d Pullin utility purposes over, under, "Ong, aeroon and through thnt portfor, of Got 116 of Block 9 of Irvine'e Subdivis4on, in the County of Oreage, State Of callfornia, per map of Ohio aubdivision re- corded in Hook I, Papa Off of btisaellvv.ous Renard. Map., re.c.rd. Lrr said County, dase.ribed an fc,lltmal neginning at taro Post OcAthorly corner of Said Lot; shehue, Rort,h h90 11, U " VAAL, eltma the Son Snwoute.Y'l,Y lion at 6&1U' Lot, P dl Nthnfe of 118h,56 feet to the. Southeaweerly line of the lend described III the cOrti Plad copy of Firm.]. Order of Condomnati.on recorder! May 3, 1966 in Bock '1920, Yoe 139 Of Offiol61 RAAQ s, mcoras or 6adtl i;Vu➢W; thenl;e fiol'th 40- 3p- 52" EnSt, .1dar. AMA 3outhAvataxlY 11hoo, 70.00 Panty thence South 480 42' 53" East 2';D.02 feat; thence Sauta. bh0 37, xll' Ent 327,6", f:'cet to a linty parallel with sad South- westerly line and diatan4 Noz.h€6nteriy 40.00 feet therefrom, IDP"ured at x^Cgi,'t falmr•1 '4halwa teti'h 490 2S' 05" Eaat, along said purailel line, 27b.79 Pent to the beginning of a tlmgcmn curve concave Northeasterly and having a radius of 1-9c.00 Teat; thence Southaaateriy, along onto nurre, through m central angle o.f 7e 211' 07", A durance of 1418,5V1 feet to a reverae curve, concave Uouthxesterly and raving a radial of 1?'i0.00 feet; thencO 3autheasterly, along said faverse carve, through a central ougle of To 24' 07", a dtxtance of i6l..119 feet to the point of tangency of natd curve; a'I.th a line parallel Ni.th avid Gm;:hr+aataa'ly lIne. and distant northeasterly 60.W feet ihrcrof rqm, amanurao at right "MINA; said Point. of tangency, being on the Boutbe"ter.ly line of eIdd Lot 116i thence Sov'6h 400 3" BC" West, along eaid Southexteter Ly line, 60,00 feat 1',u the point of beginninQ. , Alan hereby gran Ling a]lvehicular arctoo rights no Alton Avenne from the land - lying liorthOHSterly or the Nerthecat"Jy It,,. of Cam ebgva dea,!,11md ploixl.nty except a atrevt llie sc Li era Y �^ 0 STATF. OF CAUFOXUMA "COUNTY OF' NN. �ftr �'s<sr1 .. ., ._ ml a 111 Ill, b,M In en r rah 8 Pv na lnarwnw, dai.ed tl�_to,,,temxber2J.e.. I%GB f%qy S 6;,,.,tyod�,fPe; and,7ryl,iO iodeffer _ ... N f S N a Part k I [nrItln I,, all al'i n. won of cn' I. UCt4.&7 7.,. i0a nnYaau Mnma9 nnwm n rtfeNrnen Hen+ 4H.rn+ 4 FOR PFco"Upe tar ONIY k own 1. IN be IN, on nA✓ hp _.A.� g{ ". 0 'TIPr s nL 1.ha' lei to N II ran 1 and RRtrhw tla d ` g• � �14N. S f4 LA UI 'Ph .?M s rod dl x 61p,�'}��1tt3"'b a a ra - 1 rya � t n \7l mITN 95 F I i5ail1-« yFi��.�E"r al l R t dG ntY r tl w Alba 1 h c on,ll. MAN Tax 5fvldronit To 4PNIfRED M. LA IONall y all Hdl. nw, A., 1 nry a1 xn,.,n Ana m„x nn F,P i.: N%CPtrY M?? Errlrna NxrtM1'lP., ro)( Glllwnb 21, N. .vh e S raw, Shhero All. unaMrn a Mal suu i�aan; r ROAD tcax8751 rat[ 89 8 IIV/ dG8 il". o"". nEorEOINO RCQU60TUO UY Q7f Y SOUTHERN CAUPORNIA EDISON COWPANY V'H rN RCCOHnnn MAIL TO SOUTHERN CAUFONNIA POISON COMPANY ua ,1n orr� ,..,.T (-I,, O:)Y 7.307 ','i'C6 AVIA, CA. 11271V UgtJiVIOUALI JAN 2 51974 ua I I 087PQ 197. $J,QQ N[WRDEU AT IleHUEM 9P 71ES1 AMfN� TIJ IH9, fia. IN 6",Wild R""'b UP "An', "if, Y, CALIF. &OSAM fdM 4 1974 p, ,41t 6d8tYlE, CuuntpR"WMdt. —9V'AC6 AHOVE', THIO LINE VGR R6GOROGN'6 ((LOrmnuf RE, edfmrad to no "Crvrtm{s7", h ebf;. graut(u) ro SOUTHHRN CALWORNIA LDI,y'ON {:OATl'ANY, A C.,flO nlimt, Ito snoUl-l"M cud naA,gnA (6eiafmlfbl retorted to nil "an,moc"), un Vilon not lmd right of wuyrc lon"trurt, nun, xnnlnwin, .Pavel', Vital, Add to, ropnlp rspinna, rcennatrnct, i""'Vi,t and rarnoea At ivy time And iron, (In,a, Ea time andargrnund doonoil s,,pin, nY'Uws and aamrnnni"ad,m, spd s {Vinr¢(nn(Nr rCfarrad to na "ryututnd') consisting of rvirm tinTigronad omiltihs, ralit i, vanki, mm,haW,,vurdh.le, m,E ineiuding ubava�gmund m'I'l.urn, nw bern and aunaratm pads and olhnr dxpm- "etmnt ftxwla and .pal MVIA :u,:eamrc or nwtul in, dim,ibuting ehh'i' ad N:mgy Vnd far tramp, in, iu dlia"nen by alnct'l'n� .sari", in, on, over, undo., ncrosn and ndang that ...Milt real prt>prxty is the County of ....... ,....... ... .....Urani;d......-................___.... ,,,., "iMt, of Cn ll fn"dn' doo-cril>od s ndoloo: 86S ATTACIM) ''F'911AZR' A" PDX LWAL DESCI U"rIGN. Grnutor(s) d(V"V(4 far tbnmsnlveu ( dKi iXiVdMK), their$Wmx) heir.l and nsspYns, vatto erect, (dace or n mndn, ear fo pa .... ii thr'."a nn, pincmnon ,, osintavanca of. dory bulidinfl, pinntflr bmis, w, i Fit or atixar ffirlit'nu od ar walla and fadcnx on she nbt to nd,o orad rani ,ro only, inn andAng, r.n-nadf n •ore trimvVith rs, ngnnta nttd id 511yrey "Itatl 'V A the right id t y,l or cat tree roots ab nmy node II nr fo Vlore with mill o of C'r and gild! diva Eraa roes ro nI systems did ovmy part Lherng y ell tides, for YhA purylodd a[ c'I" leg tow righhrt IG,r 1 grouted; provided, Irowover, t int a ranking illy ns,, t tian on axis property i ii filna"ci(5).:Itih m"I'llm: 'diet mnkP th" sorr.a fE sucfr ntannar na will Deus" tho Ianat injury to tfic sodane,rt f t grow,d I to, 'l retch excavation, dill! .ball Ivpinea the enrth . rmnovad by IC 1, n rAetorA :he s'ur(Aca ni Ilte graanA m Vd unnr the, uamc cnndlAlgn as it wad prior Co such exrnanxiRn ss va ill Aa,icab!c 1 z _. RX)iCUTF.P this %....,..,. dny of Fin«11 192::. .... .... '"Z .. .,.. .........................._.................._....,.......... .........,.,.....,..,.......,.............._........,............,...................._...................... ,.... WtT'QL,9S C1dAD1TpIt 5), STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOtlb'"CY,S UFt.M..._....... __.._._�..,._.... _. f nr .Ya...uantu._Gen%. n... Zt �................. 4crara ,ne, a N.;,,y P011, In :ifl Jar said State, P"'Wilr MPeaod n,y bend ,uul aE60 seer. u ". , t]1+hIL1IAL SPAL t41NI6ttEd tit. 1a EONDE. ...:........................:..., .^...F.'S.%.Y.`.^..,........ -, p9YRNYpUpt N:ALifOebld 1NNIe'SIED ht, N LUNDE '``VV 9R.0£ arnwTY y Ry Camnetdtra EewMllrt.AtldS]H AVNI DO.", YOU" WA 9170 Grate ad Undecnat 6429-6705; 9-6706 "EXHIBIT A" HN 1 p 087Pt 1 198 Nino (9) .triga of land, each 6 fear, in width, lyiNg within Tortola 1 and 2 se. shows. on a map filed in Roots 32, page 10 of Parcel Napa, in Cho office of the RecordeL of said county, the canterilmea at said "Cripa axe described as follnwat SCRIP NO, 7,: Beginning at a point in the ommthwesteviy lino of said Parcel 2, naid Pn9.nt is located 99 font northwesterly mongered al'mjl smite; southwesterly lion from the most southerly carnet of naid parcel; thence, South 4037'30" West, at right angles from said oouthweatorly line to the nnxtheawtarly Use of Alton Avenue, as new established, STRIP NO. 2: Asgl.nning again at the point of beginning described in Strip No. 1 above; thance, northerly a diocesan of BE .feet to a paint Hereinafter referred to as Paint "A", whieh paint is located 281 fear, southwenturly, mannered at right angles from the northeasterly Tina of said Parcel 2, STRIP No, 11 Gammonaing at the Abovem"ntianad Point "An; thence, North $0°37'30" 4a"C yeralln9. with the. southenateely If" of said 1'arosl 2, a distance Of d feet to the TAPE POINT O8 BEGINNING me 'Chia daaaxip trl nn; thnnoa, Earth w2vuo Rost a distance of 21 feat to tho beginning of a tangent town concave. northerly having a radius of 4 feet; chance, sou Cberly and secretly along said curve, through a aentrai eagle of M, an axe distance of 6,20 feat; Lhanca, tangent to maid curve, North 40"37130" gaso a distancs of 241 Cent to the ..Uthwesrarly lino of Garry Avenue, 60 Peat in width. ETUR 110. 4- ;-Commencing again At said POS.nt "A"; thence, South 40'37'30" West a distance of 2 Peer; thence, North 49"22130" Erin a diatacae of 2 feat to the TRUS POTN'T OF DWINNTNG; Plasma, South 40"37'30" West a diata,nco of 5$ fleet• TrRIP Communing again at said Point "A"; thane,, 4u.0, 40'37130" West a distance of 2 fmat{ Chance, North 49°22'30" Went a diocesan of 12 Coati threat, North 40°37130" Past A diotnnco of 6 feat to a Point hereinafter referred to us Point "h", the 'lRllh, POINT ON ELTINNING' of thin description; thauca, wootnrly a distance oil 126 foot to s Point IN a dine that, is parallel wish and distant 336 feet. eau thw"at ns lye resented at right ANSI." true the northeasterly line of said larval I. Beginning at the abovem.ntionad Point "h"l thanes, northwesterly a distance of 273 Feet to a point is a line that is parallel With and distant soithwoncarly 351 test, mesanred at right ang:l.aa from the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1. STRD NO. 7: Gnvmenaing at Cho nDovemerrioned paint "H"; thanes, North 40'17'30" East a diatense of 2 ;eat to a point hereinafter rofarred to as Paint "O', the TRUE POINT OF hhIGNNINO of this dearrlption; tlwnca, northwant arly a distance of 263 feet to n point in a line tlauc is parallel with and distant 247 feet southwester Ly, measured at right angles from said northeasterly line of Parcel 1, nx 1 108we 1 199 Crest of Easement 6429-6705; 3-6706 getrIbit "A" Page 2 STRIP No. 8: Beginning at the abuvaenntioned point "C"; thane, narthaily a distance of 183 feet be A mint 0.0 n lino ehn.t in twell.ol o:Ltb ana d{eeant 186 fear xa¢thwentarly, ma¢eux od mt [...ght nuglan Loom acid sur Lheaacnrly line of parcel 1. ,S'f1Uk NG • 4 t beginning again at said Point "G"; thence, northeasterly a distemea of 92 fact to a point in a, line that is parallel with And distoat 186 feet eouthweaterly, measured at right Angina from maid northcaetarly lLm of P¢rte7. A. Also, -a rectangular parcel of Land, LO' x 7.2' to size, bounded and described as fell ma: beginning at the sfAromantioned Point "h"i Osman, South 40037'30" Poet a distance of 2 pact; thence, North 49°22'30" Want a dl.atauo, of 12 fast; rhonee, North 40°37'30" Fast a d„stance of 1.0 faat; thence, South 49"22 i0" Lack A dintanaa at i2 feat; thence, soutl1 W37130" West 8 feet to the point of bogimting. Tim Granteeagreed, by the aacaptanae oC this instrument, that in the event the said umtorground aleccrlm li.na, lying within the cocoa described stripe of land, shall interfere wish thu davalopmont of the above described property of the. Grantor, then the. Grantee will, At Grantor's expanse, wl.thin ninety (90) days attar the eoaei.pt from thm franker of s written natioa no to do, rniocat.e said electric lima, or a portion chernof, .in a £aaaible location on the property of the Grantor slid on an to conform to any future building or atruccura n:P.ieh may be erected me the property of the Grantor, eaid Grantor shall. furaieh the Grantoo wth a good end aufficl¢nt parmanent Grant of Easement satisfuctory to the Stanton for amid electric. Sine in such lieu location. NW R.A NI,, 1S11P PKCOMN. RKOURSTU. AV 21502 135 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY _ LSJOIAM wHAN""'gEoySOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Flm'A aaPgM,2."W7MAdS61O74 ld. V?7.:i kgl'fGE,q�APPtyRrotNeE 9PACF AAOVn'. THItl LINK YOp RMCORdER'D USA wu+�, — CP" ggg1'(Y &gyp '. GRA T 4F F/19EM F_'NT (,Nnlwount) U/,P/C�„U•.Mt]N�t[�pY�/Yp,PAHSiEF id%; Nano inn canxirlarunnnl Jo a -M 6e tiiu 4 YVni 4 „Y oTWY vn�Y[vrvlllnt +nY��`:J YIXN N ,,,., a:,„O t. L6QYFFP.A and Plf7,tYfi hf, Rl51ItiFFt;R ........ ........ ... ._... ...... ...... .,..... Nu ,hf(a rcl rd to nt '(nnnu(s)', hXnty, g r(s) to SGUTH612Ff CALIFORNIA EDISON L OMPAMV, n cnxlwratinn, ua nieclxtems nn4 Ansigm dnredl tr An Cm, en `), ateawo..t and Yight of goatul ,earo ",, „se, ma(ataln, on" att, elf", end Id; rgonb, qt,,A, ramutruct, inspect and login's of Ally' YIMd E,el intuit tint, to tlritei go6r,g,rond rift mn! O%viY SySolom and Copt monk--Adoo Ay"On. (hnccfaedtef refln,A4 to Im "ysmnw"), rm ittiag of a"(l,, to ergwood candshs, wbir" salt., mrnbalas, bnadhalns, lold b nhbdiag nba•ugroand enainAurgs, mno.crre and conenla pods nod allow appor- tgoont 6ntw'gs and opopo.m naeevsnq or nseful hn' dinhdbudug elont,vol soetgy rind for traaamuHng hatilignnaa by ,laet,hnfl means, w, an, dvm', ender, At'. anal along that eerp{la 11.1 prnper(y is for Goat). of a9KY'........_...._.__. .... ._,..,St. to al CAI Iio. in, dwl Nan d au folio,e: A scrip of land 4 feet So width, 7.yLi(r, wtehlo Lot '.1,16 of Met; 9 of Txviue's Gubdlvialonr as Par trip raeardad in gook '1, page 88 of Niaaelloneouo Darold Maps, in cbe Pf£io. of the County Recorder of sold County, the centerline of anid strip batng de.srrlbod as frliowai Aeginnlrrg at a po:[tt in said lot, di.arent southerly 264 flat and westerly 513 .feat, meaoorad at cf.ght sng:tes ragpoetivsiy Exam chi oeotivgtly line of Gauy Rvemaa, GU feet wtole as now established, and Che wasteely ldara of VoP.ndor 9tceat, 60 feet wide as eau xatabliehvd; thence, blath W22'301' East 26 Coat; thence, North Wi)7130A Ts'ast 244 feet to a "Ant It, vaid P.nel'.Ilai'ly .1:1nn of Carry Avenue, the Graneane ngaaem, by the aaaeptnca of ticte inacrumeat, that in in. neene the said otatmrground r1pctr1e .liva, Jying within the above desrrlbod string of land, shall intoreere with the deedvioneak of the above described property of the Ftantort than the Grattan will, at I;agath,,ro expense, within nta"y (90) days a£twT the reeaipt from the Grstttor of a written rowice se to do, teloeaee gain slrdetri,..106, at A tontine thareaf, In a feasible lonaeiau on aloe property', of the Grantor and so as to Confetti to any £ukase bulld:tnS oc al.nne.ta,nn whieb may be -"aL-d on the ntunArey Of the Grantor, said Grantor nhal.l £umiak the Grantee vbth a gaud and euff3cient Pormanont Grant of tieernenf gatini'aotoxy to the Grantee got sold qalaterla line in auch now lsoatlon. Gnallar(.) AGW(E) an' lb.lII VAI (%ri'b"th9t$�, Ihdir tiAaflar� brine End MAIt}e" 1lot to C"d' }Iced of ln.iatntn, Ito, to or ... It Ihl' @Paetion, plaretnont nr Iridate"aact p( Ally bmihtiog, tltaatu bones, earn IM no Odin, rd'olte"t g,re1t \,All. and feneen All the vd,wr dng,,I1 ,d t'enl pwpefty, +t'he Gtlonce, and is tor- toacncAf ahsPlu and employees, .bag have. the right to vimor ,at NO. rotor l,A Amy a Svoge, or inhnfare n'Ith mod ey»tmn„ And WO01 hgve fret, n"'w 0 Xmd sysitmt and a,e'T Intl, Hroof laaf, all (linen, far the purpose of axavnl4ag the rfghtg herein gloated; provided, howovdr, mat in mWag mly excavuHaP on said prapnrtp of Itur Gnnntagn), tiro Gl000e shall Ioske the.aloe a .h manner na vill many the knot !"It, hi Not nude, of the ground Around m,ch oxnavatiou, and Plmll rifling the eaoth to removed by It end rnAnot, let imh6lg of the gePaad to nA ,mar the came amditiml on it "ta Ink" in inch axaavntdon an In ptanNenlrie. EXECU'TUD thin ...kith_.,, any of _.-AozRb........... 19...V., ....". $fli`T f^SH el ndD> lot .............._._..,....,.___._.......,.,....,.,..................;...,.,.......,...... _....... WITNESS GRAN'CGR(5 . 39'RTR CP gNLLiY(JxnCA f.Gl)VTY of .... ..... 9VkaWT,, sa fQprya!},,,1.4.t..Urt9Y:{........ ...... »_..........,... rain,, to, s N.V P.1ek in and ka Xnid She, p.l.."(tY a.......4 w X I and P bl I y.Dry r 'm...o Ml� LA WNgE^NGYngrPU9UC•COUNA1E WNNgi7CD M.UG LWINIFRED C 511:1�� oono,yAtlaON.s17P"vl Pvkfee, VadMx, qBi. 8i2444 MEMORANDUM MCT # 62765 TO: Finance &Management Services Agency 07% Tuesday, October 18, 2022 PROM: Planning and Building Agency Vducatxs r SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Cash Transaction All fees are subject to change at any time and may also be affected by scheduled adjustments on July 1 of each year. The Payee must pay the prevailing rate at the time payment is made. 'ROJECT NAME: New Warehouse/Industrial Building MASTER 1D #2021-166019 'ROJECT ADDRESS: 1700 E Garry Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705-5802 AP #430-171-07 application # APPL-2022-2-APC Permit # ISSUED TO: Melinda. Luthin Melinda Luthin Law ADDRESS: 2721 E. Coast Highway, Suite201 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 ITEM DESCRIPTEON QTY UNIT RATE AMOUNT FUND NO. I Appeal (Non -Applicant) 1.0000 $472.00 $472.00 01116002 53606 Batch'-65738 -- 10/1.8!202.2 ID; ctvic.t:or~ Office'. C:T'iH Tr arrws- ,� I i, ,.'T' 1 AcctrT. afT: 62765 RCPtv�1!abi!.!0 2 -- 40/18/2022 3!06 P!l Transaction Total $472,00 NELINDA LUNITH ;7 ICL (-'heck 1209 $472 Comments: Issued By: Pezeshkpour, Ali (Planning and Building Agency) NOTES: For payment to be considered complete, a Miscellaneous Cash Transaction (MCT) must be paid in full. Applicant must return to Planning with stamped cashier validation of the paid MCT for closure in the Planning system. TOTAL MCT AMOUNT: $ 472.00 GL Account # Total 01116002 53606 $472.00 EA Page 3 of 3 City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Comment 1: This comment states that the Planning Commission had no authority to approve the conditional use permit (CUP) because not all record owners of all interests in the subject property (1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue) joined or approved the application. Response 1: A complete application was submitted for the CUP, including a submittal affidavit signed by the applicant. The information on the submittal affidavit is consistent with the grant deed provided with the application. The submitted materials were determined complete and the item was subsequently placed on the Planning Commission agenda on August 22, 2022, and then October 10, 2022, for consideration. Comment 2: This comment states that the CUP would "obliterate easements that serve and are for the benefit of the Gary [sic] Plaza Office Park," which abuts the project site to the east, and that the City may not grant a permit that interferes with the rights of the easement holders. Response 2: The project site is affected by five easements, some of which will remain, others of which will be quitclaimed or modified as needed. These five easements are as follow: Easement Description Status Response Abutter — Rights of ingress and To remain This easement allows potential access from the egress to or from the street or future Alton Avenue overcrossing right-of-way highway abutting said land (1968) along the southern edge of the project site. No — from the future Alton Avenue modification is required. overcrossing onto the project site Southern California Edison (SCE) To be This easement is for SCE's utilities from Garry Company — for public utilities, quitclaimed Avenue onto the project site. It does not affect the ingress and egress, and incidental adjacent property, but will need to be quitclaimed purposes (1974) — from Garry when the project site is redeveloped with the new Avenue south on the project site building and resulting site plan. to a junction box on the project site SCE — for public utilities, ingress To be This easement is for SCE's utilities to the buildings and egress, and incidental quitclaimed and other areas on the project site. It does not purposes (1974) — on the project affect the adjacent property, but will need to be site, branching into 7 directions on quitclaimed when the project site is redeveloped the project site to serve multiple with the new building and resulting site plan. buildings and onsite improvements Abutter — for reciprocal easement To be This is a private easement between the subject and agreement (1977) —allowing partially property and adjacent property at 1800 & 1820 E. cross -parcel ingress and egress quitclaimed Garry Avenue that allows cross -parcel ingress and between the project site and the egress, but the easement does not specify exactly adjacent property at 1800 & 1820 where the points of cross -parcel ingress and E. Garry Avenue egress are. The easement intends to allow each property to allow usage of drive aisles to reach Garry Avenue and Daimler Street. When partially quitclaimed, the adjacent property will still have access to Garry Avenue and Daimler Street, in full accordance with City and Orange County Fire Authority regulations. Modification of this easement is a private matter between the two parties, but a condition of approval no. 9 on the resolution for Exhibit 15 Page 1 of ; City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Easement Description Status Response Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) has been added to reinforce that the two parties must complete any modification of this easement prior to issuance of building permits for the project. SCE — for public utilities, ingress To remain This easement allows SCE to access its overhead and egress, and incidental utilities on the west side of the project site. No purposes (1987) — to allow access modification is required. to overhead utility lines In addition to these five easements, there exists a drainage easement entirely on the adjacent site at 1800 & 1820 E. Garry Avenue. This easement is for the benefit of the project site, allowing drainage from the project site onto the adjacent property. However, this drainage easement will no longer be necessary, because once the site is redeveloped, the proposed project will capture all its runoff onsite and will no longer depend on cross -property drainage. Comment 3: This comment states that the City did not allow members of the public to view the CUP application and that it is impossible to determine if the CUP application contained all required information or if it was filed by the property owner or agent. Response 3: The City provided the appellant the opportunity to view the project file by submitting a request to view public records. The appellant ultimately filed the request, and the project materials were made available for viewing. Comment 4: This comment states that the Planning Commission approved an application not contained in the agenda packet. Response 4: The Planning Commission agenda packet contained all necessary information for the Planning Commission to evaluate the project, including a staff report, draft resolution and ordinance, copy of public notice, and relevant exhibits. The staff report contains a detailed project description and analysis of the requested CUP and amendment application (zone change). The full agenda packet was published online and remains available for viewing at https://santa- ana.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19499 . Comment 5: This comment states that the Planning Commission approved an application it "appears not to have reviewed." Response 5: This comment is similar to Comment No. 4 Comment 6: This comment claims that the Planning Commission's approval of the CUP is in violation of Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-630 et seq. Response 6: The appellant does not provide any further justification for this claim. However, the application was reviewed and processed in compliance with all Santa Ana Municipal Code and state requirements. Exhibit 15 Page 2of5 City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Comment 7: This comment states that the identity of the CUP applicant is unclear and that the applicant does not appear to be qualified to apply for the requested CUP. Response 7: This claim is similar to that made in Comment No. 1. As stated previously, the applicant's information is contained within the application and was described in the staff report, ordinance, and resolution prepared for the project. The information therein is consistent with the information contained within the submitted applications. Comment 8: This comment states that the Planning Commission approved the CUP for a use not permissible in the Professional (P) zoning district. Response 8: Among the requested actions is approval of an amendment application (zone change) to bring the site's zoning designation into conformance with the General Plan. The current zoning designation (P) is inconsistent with the Industrial/Flex. The requested zoning district amendment to Light Industrial (M1) would establish consistency with the General Plan land use designation and would allow the requested project through approval of a CUP. Comment 9: This comment claims that the Planning Commission resolution approving the CUP contains false statements as to the identity of the owner. Response 9: The appellant does not provide any additional information to justify this claim. Comment 10: This comment alleges that the CUP was approved without proper environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Response 10: The City has evaluated the project in full compliance with the provisions of CEQA. After a thorough evaluation and preparation of an initial study checklist, the City prepared an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are "consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site." As detailed in the Environmental Impact section of this report, the project was fully evaluated to determine if there are any project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and none were subsequently determined. Therefore, the Section 15183 exemption prepared for the project is the appropriate form of environmental review. The exemption is attached to the report as Exhibit 10 and a complete response to this is contained in Exhibit 13 to this report. Comment 11: This comment states that the Planning Commission approved the CUP for a use of land not permissible in the General Plan. Response 11: Refer to Response No. 8. Exhibit 15 Page 3of5 City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Comment 12: This comment alleges that the Planning Commission approved the CUP without making the necessary findings of fact pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638 and Section 41-639. Response 12: As detailed in the accompanying resolution for the CUP, all required findings of fact pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638 have been made by the Planning Commission in its consideration of the requested CUP. The resolution has been included in the staff report packet as Exhibit 2, containing a full recitals section and detailed analysis of how each of the five required findings of fact can be made for the project. Comment 13: This comment alleges that the Planning Commission approved the CUP without making a proper motion. Response 13: The appellant does not expand on this statement or provide any specific detail concerning why a proper motion was allegedly not made. The Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing in accordance with all SAMC and state laws, with staff from the Planning and Building Agency and the City Attorney's Office available to ensure proper conduct. A full video from the meeting is available in the October 10, 2022 agenda packet is available online at https://santa-ana.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19499 . Comment 14: This comment states that the "Land use is not compatible with the General Plan." Response 14: The Industrial/Flex (FLEX) General Plan land use designation was established in order to encourage a range of low -impact industrial and limited commercial uses in the area in which the subject site is located. The project has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties. Moreover, as a result of the Sunshine Ordinance community meeting process and feedback provided by the adjacent property's representatives, the project's site plan was rotated clockwise 90 degrees to orient the loading docks away from the adjacent property. Following this revision, the applicant further revised the plans to note installation of gates and height -restriction bars to prevent large trucks from circulating on the east side of the project site, which would further minimize noise and vibration impacts on the adjacent property. These measures are all consistent with the purpose and goals of the FLEX land use designation for the area in which the subject property is located. Comment 15: This comment is claims that the proposed use for which the CUP was issued is inconsistent with the required findings of fact contained within SAMC Section 41-638. Response 15: Refer to Response No. 12. Comment 16: This states that the conditionally permitted use does not comply with the development standards in the zoning district. Response 16: Refer to Response No 8. Moreover, the project has been designed to fully comply with the development standards of the M1 zoning district. No exception or variance is required to allow a modification of these standards. Comment 17: This states that the CUP does not identify the specific use of land that is permitted. Exhibit 15 Page Aof5 City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 Response 17: The staff report prepared for the project contains a full project description and accompanying exhibits, including side plans, floor plans, elevations, landscape plans, and renderings, that fully detail the project and its intended use as a flexible building for warehousing, limited manufacturing, and distribution uses. Comment 18: This comment states that the staff report and Planning Commission agenda packet did not contain copies of the requested CUP and that it is therefore "impossible to know what the Planning Commission was considering." Response 18: Refer to Response No. 4. Comment 19: The comment repeats the claim that the Planning Commission did not make a proper motion for approving the CUP. Response 19: Refer to Response No. 13. Comment 20: The comment claims that the Planning Commission could not have approved the CUP because only a resolution of approval was contained in the packet and not the application itself. Response 20: Refer to Response No. 4. Comment 21: The comment repeats the claim that the Planning Commission could not have approved the CUP because the CUP application was not provided in the agenda packet. Response 21: Refer to Response No. 4. Exhibit 15 Page 5 of 5