Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-077 - Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Armstrong Ranch Development ProjectRESOLUTION NO.'2002-077 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ARMSTRONG RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING CERTAIN FACTS, FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS bk:10/1/02 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= For over two years, the City has considered a project to build single family homes and a Roman Catholic Cathedral and Parish Church on approximately 40 acres of the Armstrong Ranch Property. In March of 2001, a Notice of Preparation was prepared, submitted to interested persons, responsible and trustee agencies, and filed with the County Recorder regarding this proposed project, which was at that time described as approximately 160 single family homes and a 15 acre church site. = A significant number of community meetings, public meetings and public hearings have been subsequently held to consider this proposed project, including but not limited to two public hearings before the City's Planning Commission. As a result of these community meetings and public comments 4 alternatives to the proposed project were developed and various impacts were identified to be studied. As a result of this input, the City prepared a Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for this proposed project, which was submitted for public comment to all responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, neighboring communities and districts, neighborhoods in the vicinity and the requesting public. All comments to the Draft EIR were considered and responded to in the proposed Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR and errata). Resolution No. 2002-077 Page 1 of 38 A proposed mitigation monitoring plan has been prepared, as has 35 pages of certain facts, findings and statements, which are attached to this Resolution. At its regular meeting of September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, following a duly noticed public hearing, unanimously recommended to the City Council that it adopt this Final EIR, the mitigation monitoring plan, and certain facts, findings and statements. Co The City Council has fully considered this matter; and all public testimony, at a duly noticed public hearing held at its regularly scheduled meeting of October 7, 2002. All attached documents, including the Final EIR, the mitigation monitoring plan, the 35 pages of findings and approvals, the Request for Council Action, and the record of proceedings are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prepared with respect to this Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final Ell=. meets all requirement of CEQA, including but limited to: finding that the Final EIR adequately addresses the impacts of the project; that it identifies and through the mitigation monitoring plan imposes all feasible mitigation measures which will reduce all of the significant environmental impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance, except those unavoidable impacts described more specifically in the statement of overriding considerations; discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project; identifies the environmentally superior alternative; and based upon all of which and the record as a whole the Council chooses to approve the Project. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Final EIR, the mitigation monitoring plan, the facts, findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to this Resolution, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Resolution No. 2002-077 Page 2 of 38 Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney BY:B~n Kaum~ hief~,ssistan'~ ~ty Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembem: Councilmembers: Alvarez. Bist. Christy. Franklin. McGuiaan. Pulido. Solorio None (0) None (0) None (0)' CERTIFICATE OF A'I-FESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2002-077 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on October 7. 2002. Date: /~' ,-~/- z:~....~ Clerk of the Council - City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2002-077 Page 3 of 38 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR, FINDINGS, AND APPROVALS FOR THE ARMSTRONG RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15090, the City of Santa Ana (the "City") hereby certifies the Armstrong Ranch Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031004) ("Final EIR") for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project ("the proiect'). The Final EIR has been completed in compliance.with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA') and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). The City certifies that it has been presented with the Final EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project site as set forth herein. The City further certifies that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Santa Ana. The Final EIR includes the June 2002 Draft EIR, and the September 2002 Final EIR. 2.0 FINDINGS Having received, reviewed and considered the information in the record before it, including the Draft and Final EIR (June 2002 and September 2002, respectively), which are herein incorporated by reference, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City as required by CEQA (specifically, Public Resources Code Sections 21081., 21081.5 and 21081.6), and the CEQA Guidelines (specifically California Code of Regulations, Tide 14, Sections 15091 through 15093), in conjunction with the approval of the project, which is set forth below. The City is the "lead agency" for the project evaluated in the EIR. Based upon the substantial evidence in the record before it, the City finds that the Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City lVmds that the Draft EIR was prepared by consultants retained by the City and by City staff, subject to the independent review and judgment of the City. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for the proposed project, that the Draft EIR which was circulated for public review reflected its independent judgment, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. In addition, the City has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program (which is contained in the Final EIR), which describes the process to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This monitoring or reporting program will ensure CEQA compliance during project implementation. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 3.1 Project Background and Objectives The project site has been used for agricultural purposes since the early 1900s. The site had been considered for development on several occasions in the past. The property was rezoned from R1- PRD (Planned Residential Development) to Specific Development in March 1977, although the site remained in agricultural production following this zoning change. The site--and the agricultural area immediately west of the project site, owned by the project applicant--is one of the few remaining vacant parcels in the City. Presently, a high school proposed by Santa Ana LInffied School District is planned on the approximately 39-acTe parcel immediately east of the project site. The high school would be situated between the proposed church facility and the Jim Thorpe Fundamental School, Church of Latter Day Saints and the Greenville Country Church. Additionally, a development application is pending for a proposed YMCA between the proposed high school and the northern extension of Raitt Street. Recently, an EIR has been certified for the proposed high school. The proposed YMCA would be subject to separate environmental documentation. Both the high school and the YMCA are evaluated as cumulative projects within this EIR. The overall goals of the project are as follows: · To develop an urban inflll residential development consisting of executive and move-up housing products · To develop a 2650 seat cathedral and parish for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County 3.2 Overview of Project The subject of the Environmental Impact Report (~EIR~) is the Armstrong Ranch Development Project. The proposed project includes the development and subdivision of a 46.9-acre parcel of land, known as the Armstrong Ranch, in the City of Santa Ana. The project site is located between Alton and MacArthur Avenues, immediately west of Bear Street. The project consists of the site and design approval and construction and operation and all other actions and approvals necessary for the construction and operation of residential and church uses at the proposed project site. The project site is 46.9 acres of an 85.8-acre tract of farmland that is currently used for cultivation of lima beans. The proposed project involves the development of 156 single-family dwellings, a 99,000-square- foot church facility, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. The eastern portion of the project site would include single-family homes at a net density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre. A total of 156 residential units would be developed. Lot sizes within the project would be a minimum of 6,000 square feet. Residential units would range in floor area from approximately 3,100 square feet to approximately 4,400 square feet and include six different architectural/building styles. A 15-acre area in the western portion of the project site would consist of a 99,000-square-foot church facility for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County. The church facility would be composed of a church, Bishop's residence, campanile (bell tower), halls, meeting rooms, day care and preschool facilities° and offices and would, for the most part, function as a cathedral. The EIR was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to inform the public of the environmental setting, potential project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts of the project, and mitigation measures. The EIR was also prepared to inform decision-makers of the environmental consequences of the project, induding all of the approvals that may be needed to construct or implement the project, whether or not such actions are explicitly listed in the EIR. To implement the project, the City and/or other public agencies may consider various actions, permits, and approvals. Other agencies may also consider the EIRin the review of project permits or other actions, including but not limited to the Regional Water Quality Control City and the South Coast Air Quality Management City (SCAQMD)i 3.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report Prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR for the project, the City implemented a public involvement process referred to as the "scoping process." The City determined that an EIR would be required for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d). Therefore, the City began preparation of the EIR to analyze the potential impacts associated with approval and implementation of the proposed Armstrong Ranch Development Project. On March 5, 2OO1, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies and other interested parties. A copy of the NOP, and the responses received during the 30-day public review period, are contained in Appendix A of the Final EIR. A public scoping meeting was conducted at the City of Santa Ana on March 22, 2OO1, to receive input regarding the scope and content of this EIR. This meeting was advertised as part of the NOP distribution process. No individuals or representatives from public agencies or community organizations attended the scoping meeting and, accordingly, no comments were received. Comments received during the NOP scoping period were considered in the preparation of this EIR. The Draft EIR for the proposed Armstrong Ranch Development Project was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies and organizations for a 45-day public review period that began on June 24, 2002 and concluded on August 7, 2002. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. A notice of availability was also placed in the Orange County Register on June 24, 2002. A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on July 7, 2002. During the review period, the public, local and State agencies submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. During the public review period, 9 written comment letters on the Draft EIR were received and one written comment at the DEIR public hearing was received. Based on the scoping period and comments received, the Draft evaluated the following environmental issues: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologic resources, 4 hydrology/water quality, hazards/risk of upset, land use, noise, population and housing, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, and visual resources. 3.4 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations and individuals: Jim Walker, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Southern California Association of Governments, City of Costa Mesa, City of Irvine, Community Development Department, California Department of Transportation, County of Orange, Planning & Development Services Department, Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, and the Gas Company. The City evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. As required by CEQA, the City has provided to each of the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR its responses to the comments received from that agency at least ten days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recircnlate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after notice is given, but before certification. The term "information" includes: (i) changes to the'project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 further provides that "[n]ew information added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." The City has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto as welt as other textual changes and references that have been incorporated into the Final EIR. Since the release of the Draft EIR for public comment, there have been no changes in the project, no changes in the environmental setting, and no additional data or other information that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project. Therefore, having reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR and in the administrative record, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 regarding recirculation of draft EIRs, the City hereby finds that there is no new significant information and no need to recirculate the EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR has been prepared and considered by the City. 3.5 Final Environmental Impact Report The City has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), which, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, consists of: (a) The Draft EIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (dj The City's responses to comments received on the Draft EIR; and (e) Other information added by the City, including all documents incorporated by reference. 4.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR The analysis in the Final EIR identifies all of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. All of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are included in the Approval and are made conditions of the project. The following Findings are made with respect to each significant environmental impact. In addition, the following provides a more thorough description of the potential/rnpacts of the project and mitigation measures in support of the Findings. 4.1 Effects Determined To Be Mitigated To Less-Than-Significant Levels The following impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. Biological Resources Impact MOd. project construction would potentially disturb burrowing owl habitat established in the interim of the biological resources survey and commencement of construction activities. The burrowing owl was not observed at the project site during field survey. However, there is the potential for an active burrow to be established on the project site prior to projecf construction, and this species is designated as a federal and State Species of Concern. Mit~aOonM~sureforlmpact MOd. BIO-1 Thirty days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Santa Ana shall require the applicant to hire a qualified biologist with appropriate resource agency permits to survey within the limits of disturbance for that phase of development/construction (i.e., the residential or church portion of the project site) to determine the presence of active burrows for burrowing owl. Any active burrows found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If an active burrow is present, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended in compliance with §3503.5 of the C~liforuia Fish and Game Code. Nesting activity for raptors in the project region normally occurs from February I to June 30. To protect active burrows, the following restrictions on construction are required between February l and June 30 (unless burrows are no longer active, as deterrrfmed by a qualified biologist): 1. Clearing limits will be established a minimum of 100 feet in any direction from any active burrow. 2. Access and surveying will not be allowed within 50 fee~ of any active burrow. Construction during the non-nesting season can occur only ff a qualified biologist has determined that the burrows are no longer active. If an active burrow is observed during the non-nesting season, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrow, and evacuate it using CDFG-approved burrow closure procedures. Findings for Impact BIO-1. The City finds that the above-idenlJfied changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as BIO-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Cultural Resources Impact CR-I. Although unlikely, previously unrecorded resources could be discovered during project construction. There are no recorded sites within the project area or within ~A mile of the project area. However, because the general area was once settled by Native Americans groups, there remains the probability that cultural materials may be encountered. These materials could include unknown archaeological deposits, which could be exposed during grading and site preparation activities. Mitigation Measure for Impact eR- 1. CR-1 If cultural materials are encountered during monitoring, testing, construction, or any subsurface excavation or other disturbance, all such activities shall cease in that location, and the City shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to identify and evaluate the materials and to design and implement any mitigating measures found to be justified. Additional work required may include Phase 2 or Phase 3 studies. No construction activities shall resume until authorization is obtained from the City's Director of Planning and Building Agency. Findings for Impact CR-1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as CR-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1. Impact ¢R-2. Impacts on paleontologic resources could occur due to earth-moving activities extending below 5 feet from the existing grade. Historic tilling of the site has resulted in ground disturbance up to no more than 2 feet in depth. If excavation exceeds 5 feet in depth, then the potential exists for encountering fossil remains at previously unrecorded fossil sites. Excavation at these depths could provide access to an undetermined number of previously unrecorded fossil sites and would potentially result in the loss of fossil sites and remains. This impact would occur in particular where the parcel is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits. Mitigation Measures for Impact CR-2. CR-2 Prior to any earth-moving activity in the parcel, a vertebrate Faleontologist retained by the developer and approved by the City of Santa Aha shall develop a storage agreement with the LACMVP, the County of Orange paleontologic collection storage facility, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the parcel as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository. CR-3 The paleontologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that, when implemented during earth-moving activities in the parcel, shall allow 8 CR-4 CR-5 CR-6 CR-7 CR-8 CR-9 CR-IO for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by these activities. The paleontologist and a paleontologic construction monitor shall attend a pregrading meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures and lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earth-moving activities, particularly when a monitor is not on site. Paleontologic monitoring of earth-movir~g activities (particularly trenching) will be conducted by the monitor on a full-time basis once these activities have exceeded a depth 5 feet below current grade. Earth-moving activities in areas of the parcel where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but otherwise not disturbed shall not be monitored. Monitoring shall include the inspection of debris piles generated by trenching and other earth-moving activities at depths greater than 5 feet below current grade. If fossil remains are found by the monitor, earth-moving activities will be diverted temporarily around the fossil site until the remains have been recovered and these activities allowed to proceed through the site by the monitor. If too few or no fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earth-moving activities in areas of the parcel underlain by a particular rock unit have been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in the remaining areas of the parcel where underlain by the same rock unit. If fossil remains are encountered by earth-moving activities when the monitor is not on site, these activities shall be diverted' around the fossil site and the monitor called to the site immediately to recover the remains. If fossil remains are found, up to 6,000 pounds (3 tons) of fossflfferous rock shall be recovered from the fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit. The total weight of all processed samples fromthe parcel shall not exceed 6,000 pounds. Any recovered fossil remains shall be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then shall be curated (assigned and labeled with museum repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data shall be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains then shall be accessioned into the museum repository fossil collection, for permanent storage, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators. CR-I1 A ffmal report of results and £mdings shall be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the City of Santa Ana and the museum repository following accessioning of the Proposed project fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report shall describe the geology and stratigraphy of the parcel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens, and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions. Findings for Impact CR-2. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as CR-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2 through CR- 11. Geologic Resources Impact GEO-I. New development would expose additional people and property to seismic hazards including the potential for strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. As required by the CBC for the construction of new buildings and/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 groundshaking. Strong groundshaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in the general 10 region. Strong earthquake shaking can cause non-uniform compaction of the soft, which could result in damage to on-site structures. Mitigation Measure for Impact GEO-1. GEO- 1 A final design geotechnical report shall be prepared for the residential and church development to provide structure-specific geotechrfical recommendations. The fmal report shall address all issues initially covered in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Final recommendations on earthwork, spread footings with slabs-on-grade, reinforced mat foundations, post-tensioned mats, friction piles, cathedral retaining (basement) walls, and measures to address soft corrosion shall be identified. The final report shall specify foundation recommendations to ensure issues associated with underlying soft, compressible clay soils are addressed. Construction of the project shall comply with all recommendations in.the fmal geotechnical report. Findings for Impact GEO-I. The City £mds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as GEO-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Impact GEO-2. Proposed development would be exposed to site-specific soil conditions that would result in structural instability ff buildings are not properly designed. Soil characteristics have the potential to result in damage to building foundations and associated unstable building conditions ff structures are not properly designed. The primary geotechnical concerns at the site are the tilled soils at the surface, and the underlying soft, compressible clays to depths of 20 feet or more. The moderate expansion potential of shallow softs is also a geotechnical concern. Soft testing also indicates that the corrosion potential to buried steel nia-y be characterized as primarily severely corrosive when wet. This could affect buried utility lines and other support structures. Groundwater was encountered in all test borings at approximately 13 to 27 feet below the ground surface, so the potential exists for groundwater to affect structural integrity both during construction and operation. Mitigation Measures for Impact GEO-2. 11 GEO-2 Structures shall be designed, in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, to resist lateral loads due to strong earthquakes at this site, as spedfled in the Geotechnical Report (see Table 3 of that document). GEO-3 To reduce the potential for damage due to soft expansion, slabs-on-grade shall be provided with sufficient reinforcement and the footings shall extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade are another viable alternative to effectively address effects associated with expansive soils. GEO-4 A qualified registered geologist shall (1) review the final constxuction plans and specifications and (2) observe the earthwork and foundation installation in order to ensure adherence to all recommendations. Findings for Impact GEO-2. The City f'mds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as GEO-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO-4. Impact GEO-3. Construction activities would temporarily increase soft exposure to wind and water erosion. Trenching, grading, and compacting could expose soil to erosion by wind or water during the construction processes. As the site is undeveloped, it is currently exposed to the potential for erosion, particularly when the site is not under cultivation. The addition of paved and landscaped areas would, over the long term, decrease the potential for erosion because fewer exposed soils would exist on-site. Because the proposed site is greater than 5 acres in size, the proposed project is subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Compliance with this permit process would minimize effects from erosion. Mitigation Measures for Impact GEO-3. GEO-5 The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and shall comply with all applicable requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A copy of the NOI shall be submitted to the City Development Services Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 12 GEO-6 Erosion control practices shall be employed and maintained on all vacant areas on the project site that have been graded. Findings for Impact GEO-3. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as GEO-3 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-5 and GEO-6. Hydrology/Water O, yalit), Impact HYD-1. Construction activities would result in runoff that would potentially affect water quality. Implementation of the proposed project would result in land disturbing activities such as grading and excavation to develop residential dwelling units and a church facility. These types of construction activities could accelerate the erosion process by loosening the soil, increasing the gradient of land slopes, and altering natural surface runoff patterns. Such changes may increase the erosion rate from the natural rate that existed before the construction activity began. However, it should be noted that the project site currently consists of level-graded agricultural land with limited vegetation. Therefore, the total erosion from the project site after development would be decreased due to the reduction in the area of exposed soft on site. Mitigation Measure for Impact HYD-1. HYD- 1 All proposed drainage improvements, including project catch basins, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set by the City of Santa Ana and by the Orange County Flood Control District. Plans for grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Findings for Impact HYD-1. The City finds that. the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as HYD-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD- 1. Impact HYD-2. Implementation of the proposed project would modify local drainage patterns through the addition of contiguous areas of impervious surfaces. Additional impervious surfaces would include the driveways for residences, parking lot for the church, and 156 residential dwelling units. Development of the project site as currently planned and as depicted on the Conceptual Drainage Plan is consistent with the City's Master Plan of Drainage and with drainage 13 design standards established by the City with its inclusion of improvements. However, the proposed project would require drainage easements to ensure adequate drainage facilities are maintained. Mitigation Measures for Impact HYD-2. HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall record a drainage easement along the northern Raitt Street driveway, between Alton Avenue and the northern catch basin. HYD-3 Prior to issuance of building permits a storm drain easement shall be recorded between the northern catch basin and Macarthur Boulevard. Findings for Impact HYD-2. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as HYD-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-2 and HYD-3. Land Use Impact LU-2. The proposed project would contribute traffic to intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service. The proposed project would require regional roadway improvements at the intersections of Fairview Street/Segerstrom Avenue, Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue, Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue to increase the projected level of service to acceptable levels. Such improvements would require the acquisition of an existing land use and encroachments into existing landscape setbacks and flood control facilities. The proposed project would make a fair share contribution to the future implementation of these improvements, which are identified in the City's Circulation Element. Site-specific evaluation of these impacts would occur when the regional roadway improvements would be implemented. Mitigation Measure for LU-2. LU-1 Prior to implementation of regional roadway improvements at the intersections of Fairview Street/Segerstrom Avenue, Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue, Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue, site-specific 14 environmental documentation shall be prepared to evaluate and mitigate land use impacts, in accordance with the Circulation Element Environmental Impact Report (£IR 97-02). Findings for Impact LU-2. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as LU-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU- 1. Impact NOI-1. Site preparation activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term construction noise impacts. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residences located south, east, and north of the project site. A n~w high school is proposed for construction immediately west of the church site. Construction activities would generate noise levels of up to between 76 dBA L~q to 81 dBA L~q at the nearest homes during initial construction activities. These noise levels would exceed the City's threshold. Following grading, the perimeter wall would be erected and the new homes constructed. The perimeter wall would reduce noise levels generated during the subsequent construction phases of the residential units to less-than-significant levels. Church construction is anticipated to occur after the new high school is built and occupied. Structural and finishing components of the church construction would generate noise levels at the new high school and nearby residential uses that exceed City thresholds. Noise levels at the new high school and the nearest existing and new homes would average approximately 81 dBA Leq. Mitigation Measure for Impact NOI-1. NO-1 The project contractor(s) shall implemedt, but not be limited to, the following best management practices: · Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 ^.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays · All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled · All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses · Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use 15 · Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences · Neighbors (including the proposed high school) within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an enployee of the developer or general contractor) shall chtermine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; a telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site · Temporary noise barriers shall be installed between the propose~l church and adjacent noise sensitive land uses. These noise barriers may include the use of leaded blankets and/or layers of plywood. Barriers shall be at least ten feet in height. In the event the construction noise is intrusive on the local residents, the project applicant shall raise the height and/or thickness of temporary noise barriers. Findings for Impact NOI-I. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as NOI-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI- 1. Traffic and Circulation Impact TR-I. Construction traffic would result in short-term localized congestion. Mitigation Measure for Impact TR- I . TR-I A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be developed for construction activities associated with the residential and church components of the project. The plan shall identify but shall not be limited to: truck routes (consistent with City truck routes), site access, truck queuing locations, and construction times. Findings for Impact TR-1. The City Finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as TR-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR- 1. Impact TR-2. Under Year 2007 conditions, the proposed project would produce new traffic volumes that would significantly impact 7 of the analyzed intersections and 1 street segment that 16 would operate beyond the acceptable maximum level of service. Intersections and street segments that would operate beyond the maximum levels of service are as follows: · Fairview Street / Segerstrom Avenue--A.M. and P.M. · Greenville Street / MacArthur Boulevard~P.M. only · RaJtt Street / Alton Avenue A.M. only · BearStreet /AltonAvenue~A.M. andP.M. · Bear S~reet / MacAtthur Boulevard~l'.M. · Bristol Street / Segerstrom Avenue~A.M. and P.M. · Bear Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-2. Required improvements to be implemented under the proposed project: Raitt Street/Alton Avenue Provide a traffic signal (see signal warrant worksheets in Appendix C of the Traffic Report) at this location. Build the northbound approach (project access driveway) to indude two or three lanes, depending on final design of the driveway. Two southbound receiving lanes should also be provided along this Raitt Street south roadway. All these shall be included in a 64-foot right-of-way (including sidewalk/parkway on each side) along Raitt Street south of Alton Avenue. The southbound approach at the intersection should also be re-striped to provide a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a separate right-turn lane. The eastbound approach would provide a left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane. The westbound approach would also provide a left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane. The Alton Avenue roadway improvements west of Raitt Street shall include dedication of necessary right-of-way and' provision of a 13-foot westbound through lane, a 10-foot eastbound to northbound left-turn lane and a 13-foot shared through- right eastbound lane from a point 67-feet west of the centerline of Raitt Street to a point 167-feet west of the centerline of Raitt Street. Additionally, from a point 167- feet west of the centerline of Raitt Street to a point 567-feet west of the centerline of Raitt Street along Alton Avenue, the project shall dedicate right-of-way and provide the required transition at the intersection. East of the intersection, an additional 26 feet right-of-way along Alton Avenue would be needed to provide the 58-font Alton Avenue roadway (plus 8-foot sidewalk/parkway area on the south side of the street) between Raitt Street and Bear Street. 17 TR-4 TR-5 Raitt Street / MacArtfiur Boulevard--Provide the necessary traffic signal modifications at this intersection to facilitate provision of protected left-turn movements and pedestrian crossings on all intersection approaches. Provide the southbound approach to include two or three lanes, depending on final design of the driveway. Additionally, provide two northbound through lanes along Raitt Street, north of MacArthur Boulevard. This Raitt Street roadway improvement would require provision of a 64-foot right-of-way. Also~ provide a separate right-turn lane along the westbound approach of MacArthur Boulevard. This improvement can be incorporated within the roadway segment widening improvement recommended along MacArthur Boulevard between Bear Street and MacArthur Boulevard. An additional 28 feet right-of-way along the north-side of the street from the curb return to a point approximately 240 feet east and 22 feet additional right-of-way from that point to Bear Street would be needed. Bear Street / Alton Avenue--Provide a traffic signal (see signal warrant worksheets in Appendix C of the Traffic Report) at this location. Restripe and reconfigure the southbound and westbound approaches to provide a through lane, a shared-through right-turn lane and a separate left-turn lane along each of the approaches. Consistent with the roadway widening recommended along Alton Avenue and Bear Street, provide the improved eastbound and northbound approaches to include a left-turn lane, a through-lane and a shared through-right turn lane. This improvement can be accommodated within the right-of-way that was identified for the Alton Avenue and Bear Street roadway segment improvements discussed above. Bear Street / Mac.4rthur Boulevard The southbound approach would be configured to have a left-turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. The northbound approach would be restriped to provide a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a separate right-turn lane. The westbound and eastbound approaches would be configured to provide a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane. These improvements can be incorporated consistent with the recommended roadway widening improvements along MacArthur Boulevard and Bear Street (including right-of-way requirements), as well as reducing the existing 24-foot bike trail/landscape area on the east-side of Bear Street by 5 feet to 0-feet (5 feet at the intersection curb-return tapering to 0 feet approximately 600 feet north of 18 TR-6 TR-7 TR-8 the intersection curb-return). All the required signal modifications to include protected north/south left-turn movements and pedestrian crossings on all approaches shall be provided. Greenville Street/Mar. Arthur Boulevard~Add a westbound through lane so that the westbound approach of MacArthur Boulevard would have a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane. This mitigation would require improving westbound MacArthur Boulevard from approximately ~320-feet east of the centerline of Greenville Street to Greenville Street to provide a 60-foot wide half roadway (centerline to north right- of-way line) with three westbound lanes, a landscaped median lane / turn lane and a 10-foot wide sidewalk/parkway area on the north side of MacArthur Boulevard. Bear Street--Currently, Bear Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard contains two travel lanes, one lane in each direction, with a bike trail/landscape area located on the east side of the street. The recommended improvement would widen Bear Street along the west side of the street to provide four travel lanes with a raised median (and turn lanes) and a sidewalk. In order to incorporate this improvement, the existing 50-foot right-of-way along Bear Street at Alton Avenue would need to be enhanced an additional 50 feet (100 feet proposed right-of-way overall) along the west-side of the street for approximately 520 feet southerly, at which point the existing 55-foot right-of-way would need to be widened approximately 40 feet all the way to MacArthur Boulevard. These rights-of-way are to be provided by the project. These dedications will provide a 66-foot-wide roadway (curb-to-curb) from Alton Avenue which transitions to a 64-foot-wide roadway (curb-to-curb) at MacArthur Boulevard. Overall, this improvement would include 13-foot curb lanes, 11-foot through lanes and a 14-foot raised median with turn lanes, as well as an 8-foot sidewalk on the west-side of the street (fronting the project site) and the meandering multipurpose sidewalk/parkway area varying in width from 19-feet to 26-feet on the east side of Bear Street. The street improvements and channelization would conform to the adopted Precise Plan of Street Improvements for Bear Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Alton Avenue~Alton Avenue between Raitt Street and Bear Street currently provides two travel lanes (one lane in each direction) with a narrow sidewalk and a bike path 19 on the north side of the street. The recommended improvement would widen Alton Avenue on the south side of the street to provide four travel lanes with a central turn lane or median including the turn lanes at the intersections with Raitt Street and Bear Street. The Alton Avenue widening would begin at Raitt Street and end at Bear Street. The existing right-of-way within this section of roadway is approximately 52 feet. This improvement will require an additional right-of-way of approximately 26 feet on the south side of the street. These rights-of-way are recommended to be provided by the project. Overall, this improvement would include 13-foot curb lanes, 11-foot through lanes and a 10-foot central-turn lane, as well as an 8-foot parkway/sidewalk area on the south side of the street. All construction would occur on the south side of the street. TR-9 MacArthur Boulevard Currently, MacArthur Boulevard between Raitt Street and Bear Street contains five travel lanes - two lanes in the westbound direction and three in the eastbound direction and a raised median with a sidewalk on the south side of the street. The existing right-of-way along this roadway segment between Raitt Street and Bear Street is approximately 90 feet. The recommended improvement provides a third continuous westbound travel lane between Bear Street and Raitt Street, as well as a sidewalk/parkway on the north side of the street within that stretch. A 60- foot-wide half-roadway (centerline to north right-of-way line) to accommodate three westbound through lanes, a landscaped median/turn lane and a 10-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the street is recommended. In other words, an additional 22-foot right-of-way would be needed on the north side of the street, except at the Raitt Street intersection. From approximately 290 feet east of Raitt Street to the intersection at Raitt Street, the right-of-way requirement would be approximately 28-feet on the north side of the street to allow for provision of a 200- foot-long, 12-foot-wide westbound to northbound right turn lane plus a 90-foot-long turn bay taper. These rights-of-way are to be provided by the project. Overall, this improvement would include a 13-foot eastbound curb lane, 19-foot westbound curb lane, 12-foot through lanes and a 14-foot raised median with turn lanes at intersections, as well as a lO-foot sidewalk on the north side of the street. Improvements the project would be required to make a fair share contribution to: TR-10 TR-10a TR-11 TR-12 TR-13 TR-14 Fairview Street/Segerstrom Avenue~Add a left-turn lane and a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound approach. The westbound and eastbound approaches along Segerstrom Avenue would each have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a separate right-turn lane. The improvements to the westbound approach can be accomplished by restriping within the existing right-of-way. To mitigate project impacts in the 2007 and/or 2025 horizon years, the applicant shall make a one-time payment of $100,000 as a fair share contribution for intersection improvements at Fairview Street/Segerstrom Avenue (TR-10 and TR- 13), Bristol/Segerstrom Avenue (TR-11 and TR-15) Greenville Street/Alton Avenue (TR-12) and Fairview Street/MacArthur Boulevard (TR-14). Evidence of this payment shall be provided to the Public ~Vorks Agency prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue--Add a second northbound and southbound left-turn lane along Bristol Street. The northbound and southbound approaches would each have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through-fight turn lane. Greenville Street / Alton Avenue--Restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide a left-turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. This improvement can be incorporated within the roadway widening improvement recommended along Alton Avenue. Fairview Street/Segerstrom Avenue~Add a second southbound left-turn lane by restriping the southbound approach within the existing right-of-way. The northbound and southbound approaches would each have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane. Add a left-turn lane and a through lane on the westbound and eastbound approaches of Segerstrom Avenue. The westbound and eastbound approaches would each have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane. Fairview Street / MaeArthur Boulevard Add a southbound.right-turn lane. Also, add separate right-turn lanes along the northbound and eastbound approaches. The lane configurations at all the approaches including the proposed improvement at this 21 intersection include the following - dual left-turn lanes, three through lanes and a separate right-turn lane. TR-15 Bristol Street / Segerstrom Avenue~Add a second left-turn lane and a separate fight-turn lane on all approaches of the intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches would each have dual left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and a separate right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches would each have dual left- turn lanes, two through lanes, and a separate right-turn lane. Findings for Impact TR-2. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as TR-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-2 through TR- 15. Impact TR-3. Under Year 2025 conditions, the proposed project would produce new traffic volumes that would significantly impact 8 of the analyzed intersections and 1 street segment that would operate beyond the acceptable maximum level of service. Intersections and street segments that would operate beyond the maximum levels of service are as follows: [2 Fairview Street / Segerstrom Avenue~A.M. and P.M. [] Fairview Street / MacArthur Boulevard A.M. and P.M. [3 Greenville Street / MacArthur Boulevard P.M. only [2 Raitt Street / Alton Avenue---A.M. only [] Raitt Street / MacArthur Boulevard P.M. only [2 Bear Street / Alton Avenue--A.M. and P.M. [~ Bear Street / MacArthur Boulevard~A.M. and P.M. [3 Bristol Street / Segerstrom Avenue~.M. and P.M. [2 Bear Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-3. Mitigation Measures TR-2 through TR-15 would apply. Findings for Impact TR-3. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as TR-3 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures'are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-2 through TR-15. 22 Public Services Impact PS-1. Based on the Santa Ana Unified School District's student ratio, the proposed project would generate a need for school services for 155 students. Mitigation Measure for Impact PS-I. PS-1 The Applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school district. The Santa Aha School District imposes fees of $2.14 per square foot of residential development and $.33 per square foot of commercial/industxial development. (SAUSD Fee Justification Study, Addendum January 27, 2000) Findings for Impact PS-I. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as PS-1 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1. Visual Resources Impact VIS-I. The proposed project would substantially change the visual character of the project area. At 150 feet, the bell tower of the proposed church' facility would be the tallest building element on the project site. Proposed development would total 99,000 square feet. While portions of the proposed church facility may be in contrast to the scale of institutional uses immediately adjacent to the site, the proposed church would be consistent in scale with development in the larger area, which includes nearby structures that are a number of stories in height. The bell tower would be substantially higher than existing development, although it would not block any scenic vistas. Mitigation Measure for Impact VIS-I. VIS- 1 The design and character of project architecture of the church component shall be compatible with vicinity development. Architectural plans shall be reviewed during site plan review. Findings for Impact VIS-I. The City finds that the above-identhqed changes or alterations would reduce the impact identified as VIS-1 to less than significant levels and ar~ herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS- 1. 23 Impact VIS-2. Proposed development would introduce new sources of light and glare into the neighborhood. New sources of nighttime lighting associated with residential development would be introduced, although nighttime character of the area, which is generally diminished by surrounding urban development, would not change greatly from the existing condition. However, lighting fixtures, if not properly designed, would potentially be incompatible with surrounding development. Lighting from the church would occur from exterior building fixtures and security lighting in the parking lot. Lighting from the church facility could include lit features, particularly associated with the bell tower and main church building. Lighting could be characterized as a stark contrast to adjacent development, given its size and scale. The visual prominence of bell tower also heightens the potential for glare impacts. Use of highly £mished or reflective materials would result in glare impacts that could affect the site as seen from adjacent residential and transit corridor areas. Mitigation Measures for Impact VI$-2. VIS-2 Residential project design shall include a lighting plan to specify that exterior lighting at the perimeter of the site shall be directed downward onto the project site and where appropriate, include features (e.g., hoods or parapet walls) to minimize light spill-over onto adjacent parcels. Findings for Impact VIS-2. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alteratiom would reduce the impact identified as VIS-2 to less than significant levels and are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-2. 4.2 Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable Air O~ality Impact AIR-1. Site preparation and construction activities would generate emissions of NOx that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Mitigation Measures for Impact AIR-I. AQ-1 The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Santa Ana, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Santa Ana: 24 · Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference · Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person) · Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable · Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets · Consolidate truck deliveries when possible · Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site · Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per mantffacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions · Use methanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel to the extent available and at competitive prices · Use propane- or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices AQ-2 The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402~Nuisance and Rule 403--Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. Findings for Impact AIR-I. The City £mds that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the air quality impacts associated with construction to the extent feasible. Due to the fact that the reduction in air quality emissions is limited by best available technology, it is infeasible to implement any mitigation measures or any alternatives that would fully mitigate or avoid the impacts associated with the project. Pursuant to Sectioia 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code and as further described in Section 7.0 below, specific economic, legal, social, and technological conditions outweigh the significant air quality environmental impact of the proposed project. Land Use Impact LU-1. Development of the proposed project ~ite would result in a loss of 46.9 acres of farmland, including prime farmland and agricultural land of statewide importance. No mitigation measures are available for Impact LLI- 1. 25 Findings for Impact LU-I. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures to reduce the land use impacts associated with the proposed project. The site is designated prime farmland and agricultural land of statewide importance, although it has been planned for development according to the General Plan. Pursuant to Section 21081 (a)(3) of the Public Resources Code and as further described in Section 7.0 below, specific economic, legal, social, and technological conditions outweigh the significant air quality environmental impact of the proposed project. 4.3 Effects Determined Not to be Significant or Less-Than-Significant The City £mds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the Armstrong Ranch Development Project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, the City finds, as set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, above, no other potentially significant project-specific effects of the proposed project are anticipated to occur. Air O~uality. Daily operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be 168.6 lbs/day for CO, 32.5 lbs/day for VOC, 29.8 lbs/day for NOx, and 16.4 lbs/day for PM10. These emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Future CO concentrations near affected intersections would not exceed federal or state ambient air quality standards. Biological Resources. The project site does not provide habitat or foraging areas for raptors. No impacts to raptors or raptor habitat would result due to the proposed project. Geologic Resources. Effects of a seismic event could include settlement, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. Overall, the potential for these secondary seismic hazards to occur on-site is low. Impacts from risks associated with these hazards would be less than significant. Hazards/Risk of Upset. Items containing hazardous materials common in construction would be used. Applicable regulations would be followed to ensure that construction workers and the public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks from hazardous materials. The proposed project would not include routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Limited quantities of hazardous materials would be associated with facilities maintenance and routine household uses. These materials would be stored in accordance with regulations where applicable. No contaminants were detected in groundwater samples collected from soil borings drilled on the property. The previous agricultural use at proposed project site does not represent a potential human health hazard. 26 No safety hazards for people working or residing in the project area would result. The project is located within an FAA Notification Area for John Wayne Airport only. The site is not located within an Accident Potential Zone or an area susceptible to crash hazard. Land Use. The parcel immediately west of the project site is planned for a proposed high school. Existing agriculture operations on the parcel would no longer occur. Therefore, there would not be any land use conflicts between the proposed project and ~griculture operations. Noise. Future noise levels within the project site would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadways. The noise levels within the outdoor useable areas of the residential lots would be less than 65 dBA CNEL, and interior locations would be below 45 dBA CNEL. Noise levels within the outdoor useable areas of the church and interior noise levels would also meet City standards. Off-site locations in the vicinity would experience increased noise caused by traffic generated by the proposed project. The proposed project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 1.1 dBA CNEL, which is not considered a perceptible increase. Population and Housing. Buildout of the residential units is estimated to increase the population of the City by 710 persons; this would account for a 0.2 percent increase in population. The City's population already exceeds SCAG's 2005 population forecast of 319,261 persons Citywide. However, the proposed project site been identified for residential deve!opment in the City General Plan. The project site is currently used for agriculture and is not anticipated to displace any existing housing, jobs, or businesses located within the project site. Public Services and Utilities. The project would result in less-than-significant demands on public services and utilities as follows: · Increases in solid waste would be minor in comparison to the 2,700 tons taken to the Sunset Transfer Station Daily. The proposed project would increase the overall generation of solid waste. However, the County landfill system has capacity available for more than 30 years. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City's recycling program for residential uses to further reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. · The project-generated demand for electricity would be appro~mately 1.8 million Kilowatt- hour (kWh) per year. This increase would be m~nor in the context of overall demand within Southern California and the State, and would neither result in a substantial increase in demands beyond available supply, nor require a major expansion of power fadlities. · The Santa Ana Fire Department has indicated that it has sufficient facilities and staff to accommodate the needs of the proposed project. The additional population associated with the proposed project would not substantially affect level of service ratios for fire protection. 27 · The police department has indicated that it has sufficient ability to serve police demands associated with the proposed project. Population increases associated with the proposed project would not substantially affect level of service ratios; .response times would not increase measurably. · The proposed project would result in generation of additional wastewater flows. The wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to treat additional wastewater associated with this project. · The project site has been identified for residential development and would fall within the population and growth projections identified in the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. The proposed project would not result in increased demands on the water supply beyond that already projected. · In accordance with the parkland dedication requirements provided in Article 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to provide 1.25 acres of parkland. · Gas service could be adequately provided to the project site based on existing supply. · The projected service demand for the proposed project would be approximately 500 copper lines. Pacific Bell has indicated that it would be able to accommodate an increase in demand for both telephone and Internet services with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure for less than significant impacts on Public Services (Parks and Recreation). PS-2 The proposed project shall meet the City's parkland goal by a combination of providing .77-acres of onsite private parkland and payment of parkland fees. Visual Resources. The site is located within a district that exhibits a strong residential component. Development would be consistent with this component and would strengthen the residential character of this district. Residential development would be compatible with adjacent development. There are no scenic vistas that are a part of the project site or visible from the proposed project site. The site includes low-lying vegetation for a portion of the year, although this vegetation does not have scenic value. Conversion of the site from an agricultural field to residential and institutional uses would result in less-than-significant impacts to scenic resources. 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM When making findings, CEQA requires that a lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Armstrong Ranch Development Program Mitigation Monitoring Program accompanying the Final EIR (the "MMP") 28 is designed to serve this purpose for the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The MMP requires the City to monitor mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts, as well as those mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental impacts that are less than significant. The MMP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. The City finds that the impacts of the project have b~en mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in the MMP. The City adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Project for the project that accompanies the Final EIR. The monitoring program designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures and conditions within the jurisdiction of the City. That program is hereby adopted and its implementation is hereby made a condition of approval. The City approves and will implement all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES An EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines must describe and comparatively evaluate a range of alternatives to the proposed project (see § 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines). Analysis of every possible alternative or option or combination of options would overburden the EIR with an unnecessary amount of detail that would be redundant and complex, and would as a result fail to provide meaningful information for the City to consider in its review of the project. To develop the alternatives that are analyzed herein, a list of potential alternatives was prepared. For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project objectives~ while significantly lessening any significant effects of the project. The City of Santa Ana selected the alternatives below for a variety of reasons; however, the goal for evaluating any, and all, of these alternatives is to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified above resulting from the proposed project. Additionally, during the preparation of DEIR, the applicant requested that a design alternative be considered that evaluates a 45,00-square-foot basement that would fUnction as an undercroft facility. This EIR analyzes the following alternatives: · Alternative 1: No project · Alternative 2: Residential Area Developed Under Existing SD 4 Zoning Standards at 5.6 Dwelling Units Per Acre with proposed church facility 29 · Alternative 3: All Site Developed Under Existing General Plan at 7.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre · Alternative 4: Church Facility with Basement Alternatives to the project that could potentially meet most of the project objectives (which are described in Section 3.2, above) and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project are analyzed in this EIR as part of the environmental review of the project. The analysis of each alternative provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternative in relation to the project. As previously identified, implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts. All other impacts associated with the proposed project have been determined to be less than significant or have been provided with mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level considered less than significant. Table 4-3 of the EIR (also shown below) compares unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the four project alternatives with the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. Table 4-5. Proposed Project & Land Hse Alternatives Comparison Table of Ilnavoidable Adverse Impacts Resource No Pro~ect Alternative 2 Altematlve 3 Alternative 4 Air Quality Land Use + Alternative would result ~n more unavoidable adverse impacts than the proposed project -- Alternative would result in fewer unavoidable adverse ~rnpacts than the proposed project = Unavoidable adverse hnapacts from the alternative would be eomlnrable to the proposed project As the table shows, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts. However, the CEQA Guidelines require that ff the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Under Alternative 2, a total of 128 residential dwelling units and the 15-acre church facility would be developed. While the project would be developed at a lesser density, site preparation and construction activities would not differ substantially from the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction activities would still occur. Under Alternative 2 unavoidable land uses impacts associated with the loss of agriculture land would also still occur, while the reduced development alternative would result in slightly less long-term impacts, the reduced development associated with this alternative would not allow the project to 3O be economically viable. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Under Alternative 3, a total of 236 residential units would be developed, and the 15-acre church facility would not be developed. Similar to the proposed project, unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction operations would still occur. This alternative would also result in the loss of prime agriculture land, and, similar to the proposed project, unavoidable adverse land use impacts would still occur. In addition, under this alternative, the proposed project would not be able to meet its objective of developing a 2,650-seat cathedral and parish for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Under Alternative 4, a total of 156 residential dwelling units would be constructed in conjunction with the proposed 15-acre church facility. This alternative would also include construction of a 45,000 square foot basement that would function as an undercroft. Under this alternative, unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction operations would occur. However, because this alternative would involve slightly more construction activity compared to the proposed project, a greater level of air pollutant emissions would be generated. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in unavoidable land use impacts associated with loss of prime agriculture. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not reduce the significance of any unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project and would result in slightly greater level of construction related air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. 6.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the above analysis, the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. However, Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, then the EIR should also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. All of the other alternatives identified in the EIR would also result in unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts. Alternativ6 2 Reduced Development Alternative would result in slightly less, less than significant long-term impacts. However, the reduced development associated with this alternative would not allow the project to be economically viable. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the same unavoidable adverse 31 air quality and land use impacts as the proposed project, but would not meet the objectives established for the project. Implementation of Alternative 4 would also result in unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts. However, because Alternative 4 would involve more construction activity, construction-related air quality emissions would be slightly greater. Therefore, because none of the alternatives would reduce the significance of any unavoidable impacts while meeting the objectives of the project, the proposed project is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects related to land use. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the Final EIR but are not substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and all other information in the record. Based upon the substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including but not limited to the Final EIR, the City finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects and, .furthermore, finds that such adverse environmental effects are acceptable. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed project, as stated below, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings. Each of these specifxc economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project, as stated below, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, such that the adverse environmental effects are deemed by the City to be "acceptable," The reasons for the approval of the project despite the occurrence of significant unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts include the following: 1. The project would enable the City to achieve the objectives while avoiding significant environmental effects to the extent possible. The project would allow the City to: · To develop an urban infill residential development consisting of executive and move-up housing products 52 · To develop a 2650 seat cathedral and parish for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County 2. The project would be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan designates the site for low density residential uses. The property was rezoned from R1-PRD (Planned Residential Development) to Specific Development (which permlt~ residential uses) in March 1977. As such, the project site has been planned for residential development for over 2.5 years. The project would also meet the goals and policies set forth in the City's General Plan. Section 3.7 of the EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of project consistency with the General Plan, and this section of the EIR demonstrates that the project would be consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the project site is located within a City district that exhibits a strong residential component. Approval of the project would allow implementation residential uses at the site, which would not only be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations, but also would strengthen the residential character of this district and increase compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. The City's new housing construction objectives as identified in the City of Santa Ana Housing Element (refer to Table 5 of that document) include development of 353 single-family dwelling units during the 2000 to 2005 period. Over the 1998-2005 time frame, projected housing needs in Santa Aha, according to the Southern California Association of Government, include 377 very low, 226 low, 313 moderate, and 423 above moderate-income housing units (a total of 1,379 housing units). The project would contribute 156 housing units to identified housing needs within the City. 4. The project would include development of a 2,650-seat church, planned to serve approximately 40,000 households within the Diocese of Orange. The church will be designated as the Cathedral for the Diocese of Orange and designed as a prominent facility that would enhance the City's image. The church would also serve the community needs of the surrounding residential district. 4. Furthermore, there are no feasible alternative sites within the City, as described in the Final EIR. There is no vacant, unentitled land in the City that is available to the applicant and is large enough to accommodate the proposed project. The City is nearly built out, and the project site represents one of the last remaining tracts of extensive undeveloped land in the City. Therefore, there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the significant and unmitigated air quality impacts associated with operational emissions and land 33 use impacts associated with the loss of prime farmland and agricultural land of statewide importance. For the reasons stated above, and based on substantial evidence in the record before it, the City £mds that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects related to air quality and land use are acceptable and, furthermore, finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 8.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its Findings and decisions contained herein. Most documents related to this Final EIR are located at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building department, located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702. Some documents included in the record of proceedings may also be located at the offices of consultants retained by the City for this project. 9.0 SUMMARY 1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the project identified in the Final EIR: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment. b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the project. 2. Based on the Findings stated herein and information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that: a. All significant effects on the environment due to the Approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. 54 b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 7.0, above. 10. APPROVALS The City hereby takes the following actions: 1. The City has certified the Final EIR for the project, as described in Section 1.0, above. 2. The City hereby adopts, incorporates into the project, and makes a condition of the project approval, all mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and described in the Final EIR, and as discussed in the Findings, S~ction 2.0, above and project Impacts and Disposition of Related Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR, Section 4.0, above. 3. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, accompanying the Final EIR and discussed in the Findings, Section 5.0, above. 4. The City hereby adopts the Findings in their entirety, as set forth above, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated mitigation measures into the project as conditions of the project approval, and adopted the Findings (including the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth therein), the City hereby approves the Armstrong Ranch Development Project, as described in the Final EIR, including site approval and design. 35