Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75B - 3810 S. BRISTOL ST.REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: J~NUARY 5, 2004 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2003-08 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 2003-28 TO ALLOW DRIV~.-T.ROUS~ w~NDow ~WCE AT A ~. ~CDON~D' S CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED [] As Recommended [] As Amended [] Ordinance on 1s~ Reading [] Ordinance on 2nd Reading [] Implementing Resolution [] Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-254. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2003-08. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 as conditioned. Planning Con~nission Action Recommended that the City Council: Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-254. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2003-08. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 as conditioned. At its November 24, 2003 meeting by a vote of 7:0. DISCUSSION Rec~uest of Applicant Hogle-Ireland, on behalf of McDonald's Restaurants, is requesting approval of a new drive-through McDonald's restaurant within the Bristol/Sunflower Plaza located at 3810 South Bristol Street. In conjunction with this application, the applicant is requesting approval of ~Cn amendment application to change the zoning of the property to General ommercial (C2) and a conditional use permit to allow drive-through window service. Page 79 75.B. Amendment Application No. 2003-08 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 January 5, 2004 Page 2 Property Description The development site is a 2.6-acre, irregular shaped parcel located at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and Callens Common, a private drive. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of District Center (DC) with a corresponding zoning designation of Commercial Residential (CR). The existing building is a 4,288 square foot McDonald's restaurant with a 488 square foot patio area. Two additional buildings constructed in 1978 currently occupy the site; a two-story, 18,000 square foot retail building (3800 South Bristol Street), and a two-story, 8,000 square foot bank building (3820 South Bristol Street). However, these buildings are not part of this project. Surrounding land uses include commercial uses to the north, south, east and west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Pro~ect Description The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the zoning of the subject parcel from Commercial Residential (CR) to General Commercial (C2) to allow drive-through window service for a new restaurant (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). In conjunction with the zone change request, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the drive-through window service as required by code. The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing restaurant and the construction of a smaller 3,423 square foot restaurant with drive-through window service. The restaurant will provide seating in the dining area for 86 patrons, with an additional 36 seats proposed within the outdoor patio. McDonald's intends to operate 24 hours a day, ? days a week. A total of 34 parking spaces are required and have been provided for the proposed drive-through restaurant based on a parking ratio of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Additionally, an existing reciprocal access and parking agreement allows shared access to an additional 1,200 parking spaces within the Bristol/Sunflower Plaza. The architecture of the restaurant building has been designed to complement the features of surrounding buildings within the Bristol/Sunflower Plaza and those found in the immediate area; utilizing various shades and textures of plaster, stone veneer and steel building accents. Landscaping will meet current code requirements and will include 12 Canary Island Pine trees along the perimeter of the site (Exhibits 6 7, and 8). 75.B. Page 80 Amendment Application No. 2003-08 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 January 5, 2004 Page 3 Analysis of the Issues Amendment Application The project site is within the Commercial Residential (CR) zoning district, which prohibits drive-through lanes for eating establishments. As a result, an amendment application is required to change the zoning of the subject property to General Commercial (C2). The property has a District Center (DC) general plan designation which encourages mixed-use development. The Commercial Residential (CR) zoning was established in the early 1960s to work in concert with the District Center concept to encourage mixed-use commercial and residential developments. One area targeted for this type of mixed-use development was along South Bristol Street near the South Coast Metro District Center. Although the properties to the north were recently rezoned, those properties were located on major intersections and not conducive to mixed-use developments. This site is located mid block, with the parcel large enough to support a mixed-use project. its November 12, 2002 work-study session, the Planning Commission discussed District Centers and over-concentration of fast food and drive- through restaurants. It was the consensus of the Commission at that time that fast food restaurants should not be encouraged in the area. Since then, the Planning Commission has reconsidered the policy and has seen a need for a rehabilitation of commercial corridors and an increased support for long-standing business that have been a positive contribution to the city. In addition, other applications with similar requests such as the Krispy Kreme Doughnuts were recently approved and have resulted in a positive impact to the immediate vicinity. Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan supports the development of commercial land uses in adequate amounts to accommodate the need for goods and services within the area. Although similar establishments with drive-through window service exist in the immediate vicinity, the proposed drive through establishment will serve to replace an existing sit-down restaurant that will provide additional seating, access, and landscaping that will result in an upgrade to the neighborhood and surrounding community. Page 81 75.B. Amendment Application No. Conditional Use Permit No. January 5, 2004 Page 4 2003-08 2003-28 Conditional Use Permit If the amendment application is approved, a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window service is required. This request has been reviewed based on the criteria established by the City and has been found to be consistent with the operational standards for drive-through establishments. To avoid impacts to the health, safety and general welfare of persons working or residing in the area, numerous mitigation measures have been incorporated into this project. The on-site vehicular circulation system has been designed to avoid conflicts between vehicles in the parking lot and the drive-through lane. Also, the ability for cars to stack onto Bristol Street has been eliminated through the location and design of the stacking lane. The stacking lane has also been designed to operate within the subject site, thereby avoiding impacts to other users and the circulation system within the shopping center. Finally, the aesthetic issues related to drive-through lanes have been addressed by the installation of a row of mature hedges around the drive-through lane that will reduce the light and glare imposed on traffic traveling on Callens Common and Bristol Street by vehicles using the drive-through lane. At the October 27, 2003, Planning Commission hearing, the item was continued for 30 days to ensure compliance with the minimum stacking lane requirement, allow for evaluation of the proposed architectural elevations, and review the landscape design. Staff met with the applicant on November 6 and November 13, 2003 to discuss revisions to the site plan and building elevations. The applicant revised the proposed site plan to comply with the 160-foot drive-through stacking lane requirement and has added additional smooth stone veneer along all sides of the two proposed tower elements. Staff recommended the use of flagstone or other similar natural stone in order to add additional depth to the proposed elevations. Further, staff recommended elimination of the proposed building arches to ensure a more streamlined and contemporary design of the building. Lastly, the applicant increased the proposed number of Canary Island Pine Trees from seven to twelve and added a landscape berm to prevent light intrusion from the proposed drive-through lane onto Bristol Street. On November 24, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and approved the project subject to the removal of the proposed building arches on the north and east elevations and use of natural stone as recommended by staff. 75.B. Page 82 ,Amendment Application No. Conditional Use Permit No. January 5, 2004 Page 5 2003-08 2003-28 Based on the consistency with the City's General Plan, analysis of the project, findings of fact, and conditions of approval, it is recommended that the City Council approve Amendment Application No. 2003-08 and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 as conditioned. Environmental Impact In accordance with the Negative Declaration and has been prepared for this project Stephen G. Hard'lng Acting Executive Director Planning & Building Agency California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigation Monitoring Program, ER No. (Exhibit 9). Mitigated 2002-254, VC: rb Irc\reports\aa03 08.cup03 28.cc Page 83 75.B. AA 03-8/CUP 03-28/VA 03-7 A McDONALDS RESTAURANT ~ 3810 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET -- -- :~oo~ I"=IO00FEET A G E N C Y COMMERCIAL/RETAIL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AA 03-8/CUP 03-28/VA 03-7 McDONALDS RESTAURANT 3810 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y ~XHIBIT2 age 85 75.B. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL ZONE CHANGE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AA 03-8/CUP 03-28/VA 03-7 McDONALDS RESTAURANT 3810 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET P L A N N I N G A N D I~ U I L D I N G A G E N C Y 75B. EXHIBIT 3 · Page 86 0 0 Z E ? 3N1'1 ]SV'q'l ~( 'OgL M .,~,LE.O0 N PageI~'~'B'T 475.B. BIT ~'~ e ~9 75.B EXHIBIT 8 MAYOR Miguel A. Puiido MAYOR PRO TEM I~rett E. Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 · Santa Aha, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY A1TORN EY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adolf)t a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: McDonalds Drive-Through Restaurant Project Description: The proposed project is a request for approval of a new drive-through fast-food restaurant within an existing commercial center. In conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the zoning of the property to General Commercial (C2), a conditional use permit to allow drive-through window service, and a variance for the reduction in stacking distance for the drive-through lane. Project Location: 3810 South Bristol Street Project Number: ER 2002-254 Public Review Period: 11-14-2003 to 12-03-2003 Hearing Date: 11-24-2003 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Califomia. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 11-24-2003. Please direct your comments to Dan Bott: Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Aha, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Veiny Carvajal at (714) 667-2700. EXHIBIT 9 Page 91 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin J~.OUNCILMEMB E RS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 · Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COLJNCIL Patricia E. Heaiy Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Aha for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number: ER 2002-254 Applicant: Hogle-lreland Incorporated Project Location /Address: 3810 South Bristol Street Project Title / Description: McDonalds Drive Through RestaurantJ The proposed project is a request for approval of a new drive-through fast-food restaurant within an existing commercial center. In conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the zoning of the property to General Commemial (C2), a conditional use permit to allow drive-through window service, and a variance for the reduction in stacking distance for the drive-through lane. And does hereby find: That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance. Signature: Environmental Coordinator Date: This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 75.B. Page 92 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 2002-254 Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for approval of a new drive-through fast-food restaurant within an existing commercial center. In conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the.zoning of the property to General Commercial (C2), a conditional use permit to allow drive-through window service, and a variance for the reduction in stacking distance for the drive-through lane. Setting The project site is a 2.6-acre, irregular shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and Callens Common, a private drive. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of District Center (DC) with a corresponding zoning designation of Commercial Residential (CR). The project site is improved within an existing 4,288 square foot fast food restaurant with a 488 square foot patio area. Additionally, two buildings constructed in 1978 currently occupy the site: a two-story, 18,000 square foot retail building (3800 South Bristol Street), and a two-story, 8,000 square foot bank building (3820 South Bristol Street). Surrounding land uses include commercial uses to the north, south, east and west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the zoning of the subject parcel from Commercial Residential (CR) to General Commercial (C2) to allow for the construction of a new 3,423 square foot fast food restaurant on the project site. The existing fast food restaurant on the project site would be demolished. In conjunction with the new fast food restaurant, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow drive-through window service and a 10-foot variance from the required 160-foot stacking lane distance as required by the Santa Ana Municipal Code for adequate drive-through circulation. Page 93 75. B. The fast food restaurant would provide seating in the dining area for 62 patrons, with an additional eight seats available within the outdoor patio. The fast food restaurant would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A total of 34 parking spaces are required and have been provided for the proposed drive-through restaurant based on a parking ratio of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Additionally, a reciprocal access and parking agreement allows shared access to an additional 1,200 parking spaces within the Bristol/Sunflower Plaza. The architecture of the restaurant building has been designed to complement the features of surrounding buildings within the existing commercial center and those found in the immediate area, utilizing various shades and textures of plaster and steel building accents. ~ Landscaping will meet current code requirements and will include seven Canary Island Pine trees along the perimeter of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed project based on the City of Santa Aha CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by reference the analysis and findings provided in the City of Santa Aha General Plan Land Use Element EIR. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where applicable, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts. I. AESTHETICS A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a State highway? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is void 6f any scenic vistas or scenic resources. Additionally, there are no scenic resources associated with a State Highway within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed 75.B. Page 94 project would not result in adverse impacts to any scenic resource. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and it's surrounding? Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's Urban Design Element, the project site is located within the South coast Design District. The Urban Design Element establishes goals and policies to help guide the design of development projects proposed within a Design District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a Design District should exhibit high quality design and should incorporate design elements that are proportional and aesthetically related to the District setting. The architecture of the restaurant building has been designed to complement the features of surrounding buildings within the existing commercial center and those found in the immediate area, utilizing various shades and textures of plaster and steel building accents. Landscaping will meet current code requirements and will include seven Canary Island Pine trees along the perimeter of the site. Through the City's development review process the proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the intent of the Urban Design Element and would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site or the surrounding area. Create a new source .of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within an existing commercial center with onsite lighting. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the project area. II. AGRICULTURE Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use? 3 Page 95 75.B. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agriculture use? No Impact According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not contain Unique Farmlands, Prime Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance. Based on the City's General Plan, the project site is not planned for agricultural uses. Additionally, the project site is not included within any existing Williamson Contracts. A site visit conducted by the City's Environmental Coordinator confirmed the project site is currently not in agriculture production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin and subject to the requirements of the Clear Air Act at both the Federal and State level, as implemented by the South Coast Air Quality .Management D~strict. The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary planning document to monitor if air quality standards and objectives are being achieved in the South Coast Air Basin. The air quality objectives in the AQMP are based upon population and growth projections provided in regional planning programs and local general plans. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in regional planning programs and/or local general plans. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the population and traffic growth projections in the General Plan. The proposed project would be considered to be consistent with the regional and local growth projections 75:B. Page 96 and would not be in conflict with the air quality objectives established in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin is currently a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified below. Table 1 EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Project Pollutant Construction Tons/ Operations Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550 Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.5 55 Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter 150 6.75 150 Long-term Operational Air Quality ImpactM The primary source of long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be generated by vehicle travel to and from the project site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity usage. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The long-term operational emissions generated by the proposed project are consistent with the air pollutant emissions projected within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in air pollutant emissions that would exceed air pollutant emission projections evaluated within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Page 97 75.B. Short-term constructed Related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants arising from construction of the proposed project would occur during the grading and excavation phases. The proposed project would require grading to provide for the construction of building slabs, parking lots and access ways. Assuming grading of the entire project site, approximately 113,256 square feet of area would be graded. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the threshold for potentially significant short-term air quality impacts would involve the grading of 1,309,000 square feet of area. The proposed grading would be considerably less than the threshold of significance established in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Additionally, all development projects within the South Coast Air Basin would be required to comply with AQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to implement dust control measures. The purpose of Fugitive Dust Rule 403 is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as result of human-made fugitive dust sources. Ce 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? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan would therefore be consistent with the local growth forecasts for the Orange County sub region and regional emissions budget developed by the Southern California Association of Governments for the 1999 Air Quality Management Plan. SCAG has determined that the air pollution impacts of any project that conforms to local growth forecasts would be consistent with this forecast and the regional air quality impacts would be adequately mitigated by the Plan to a level considered less than significant. 75:B. Page 98 D. Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not located within immediate vicinity of any sensitive land uses. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold for potentially significant long-term and short-term air quality impacts. The project is also consistent with the City's General Plan and thus consistent with the South Coast Management Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial concentrations of air quality pollutants. E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. Construction operations associated with the proposed project could emit construction equipment emission odors that could potentially be objectionable. However, the potential impact would be short-term and would not be considered a significant impact. iV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Have a substantial adverse impact, 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 Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in con%bination with the known or probable Page 99 75.B. impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact The project site is situated within an urban setting. According to the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base and the City's Updated General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no sensitive biological resources located on or within the nearby vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to any onsite sensitive biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact According to the Santa Aha Local Register of Structures and the Federal Register of Structures, there are no historically significant located on the project site. Historical Historical structures B. Cause a substantial adverse change ~n the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known cultural resources on the project site. Additionally, the project site is currently improved. The probability for the discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction operations would be low. 75:B. Page 100 VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS 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 Impact According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the project site is not located within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault surface rupture hazard. The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or project towards the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed project is considered low. A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within a highly active seismic region of southern California. A total Of 38 active faults have been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the project site. The Newport/Inglewood Fault located approximately 13 miles south from the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The project site could potentially be subject to a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g from a magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the .Newport/IngleWood fault zone. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result significant damage to the proposed project. However, the seismic risks at the project site would not be considered significantly different from other areas in the southern California region. As part of the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a geotechnical study to evaluate potential seismic hazards on the project site and to identify design recommendations to mitigate potential seismic hazard impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the geotechnical report and compliance design recommendations and the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential seismic hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. 9 Page 101 75.B. A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact Soil liquefaction occurs when loose soil deposits below the water table are subjected to large ground accelerations generated from seismic events. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about 50-feet. According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is considered to have high to very high potential for liquefaction hazard impacts. As part of the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a geotechnical study to evaluate potential liquefaction hazards on the project site and to identify design recommendations to mitigate potential liquefaction hazard impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the geotechnical report and compliance design recommendations and the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential liquefaction hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. A-4. Landslides No Impact The project area is flat without any topographical relief. According to City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no landslide planes or slopes on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in adverse impacts in regards to landslides. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the soil exposed. 75.B. Page 102 Construction operations for the proPOsed project would require the excavation and grading. The uncovered soils on the project site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion impacts to a level considered less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit for review and approval a surface drainage/grading plan/erosion control plan, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of flow to adjacent streets. The plan is to include existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the proposed project does not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any unique geologic feature. In the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the project site consists of Omni Silty Loam Drained Soils that have moderate shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated steel and moderate potential for corrosion of concrete. Based on the soil conditions on the project site, the proposed project is geotechnically Page 103 75.B. feasible. As part of the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a geotechnical study to evaluate the geotechnical constraints on the project site and to identify design recommendations to mitigate potential geotechnical constraint impacts. Preparation of the geotechnical report and compliance with design recommendations would reduce potential geotechnical constraint impacts to a level considered less than significant. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? No Impact The project site is located within urban setting where sewer service is available. The proposed project would not require septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acut.ely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transportation, handling or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials or waste or the emission of hazardous emissions. The long-term operation and construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as solvents, oils, and paints. The proposed project would be required to comply with local, state and federal requirements regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Compliance with local, state and federal regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials would reduce potential hazardous 7 5 Page 104 material safety impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact The project site is currently improved with a fast food restaurant. According to the Santa Aha Fire Department the project site is not a hazardous waste site. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an accident potential zone or clear zone. The project site fs located within a FAA Notification Area. According to FAA criteria, obstructions to air navigation could occur if a structure is at least 500 feet high. Additionally, obstructions could occur if structures are 200 feet higher than the ground elevation of the of the runway and within 3 miles of the airport, 300 feet or more at 4 miles,-400 feet or higher at 5 miles and 500 feet or higher at 6 miles or more. The maximum height of the proposed project would be 27-feeto The proposed project would not exceed the height criteria established by the FAA. Implementation of the proposed project would pose a hazard to people working or residing within the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Page 105 7 5. B. The primary source of water quality pollutants associated with the operation of the proposed project would be from nuisance flows. Nuisance flows are defined as runoff that occurs during periods that are not usually associated with rainfall, and are most commonly produced from landscaping irrigation, leaking pipes, and water used to wash off surfaces tributary to the street. Since nuisance flows usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Additionally, during construction operations, surface water runoff generated from the project site could be degraded also potentially resulting in water quality impacts to downstream receiving waters. Commercial kitchens associated with the proposed project produces grease as a by-product of their operation. If not properly disposed of, the grease could potentially create blockage of sewer lines, which could result in damages to both public and private property. Additionally, the spillage could potentially result water quality impacts. Such impacts could potentially be in conflict with water quality standards established by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. To reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall prepare an NPDES post-construction storm water management plan per Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)' that include~ all structural and non-structural Best Management Practices. a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that includes all Structural Best Management Practices. b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that includes a description of all-applicable Structural and Non-Structural Best Management Practices, which may apply to this project. Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the Building Safety Division of the City of Santa Aha to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary sewer system and regional water 75. B. Page 106 quality. Such grease interceptor shall be regularly maintained so as to remain fully functional. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No Impact The proposed project would involve a limited amount of construction activity. It is anticipated that construction operations for the proposed project would not require de- watering activities. The long-term operation of the proposed project would not have any impact on groundwater supplies. Additionally, the proposed project would not interfere with ground water recharge because the site is not located in an area that is known to recharge the ground water system. C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which, would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is currently improved. The proposed project would not introduce additional amounts of impervious surfaces onto the project site. Existing rates of surface water runoff are not expected to increase. The project site is located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. Based on preliminary analysis of the project site, the City's Public Works Department has indicated that it is feasible that existing drainage facilities within the project area would be able to adequately drain the proposed project. The project would be subject to drainage assessment fees to help fund improvements to minimize cumulative drainage impacts. Page 107 75.B. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact According to the Flood Rate Insurance Map X0602320038F, the project site is located within Flood Zone X and not subject to 100-year flood risks. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of flooding. IX. LAND USE/PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would not physically divide any established community, in that no existing residential uses are located on the project site. The proposed project would be compatible with other existing land uses in the area. No adverse land use compatibility impacts would be associated with implementation of the proposed project. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is requesting approval of an amendment application to change the zoning on the property from Commercial Residential to General Commercial. The new zoning designation would be consistent with the City's General Plan. Additionally, the project is requesting a conditional use permit for a drive through lane. With approval of the amendment application and conditional use permit the project would be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any planning programs or policies in the City. 75:B. Page 108 C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural conununity plan? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is not included within any habitat conservation plan or any natural community conservation plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES ae Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no areas in Santa Ana designated as significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any regionally or locally important mineral resource. XI. NOISE Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's Generai Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site would not be impacted with high levels of noise. Additionally, there is no sensitive land use receptors located within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not emit noise levels in excess of City standards, nor would employees be subject to excessive noise levels. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial 17 Page 109 75.B. permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the project area vicinity. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? DJ A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would require conventional construction equipment and building practices. No significant ground borne noise impacts or ground borne vibration impacts would be associated with the proposed project. However, construction activities and construction equipment staging operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. To minimize potential construction-related noise impacts to a level considered less than significant, the project would be required to comply with City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance would limit construction activity 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, and not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays. 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an area that is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ae Be Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 75:B. Page 110 C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not induce additional population growth into the area, nor would it displace any existing households or housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact The Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire protection and emergency medical services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for fire protection services over current levels of demand within the project area and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate fire protection services. Additionally, through the City's development review process, the fire department has reviewed and determined that the proposed project would provide adequate fire protection facilities and services. Police Protection: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the-proposed pro}ect. The project site is located within Reporting District 151. Reporting District is considered to be average in police reported instances. To minimize police incidents within the project area, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures The existing building and parking lot must conform with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Aha Municipal Code. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of graffiti. Ail graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of occurrence. 19 Page 11'1 75.B. Cash register shall be visible from the street at all times and shall not be obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent signage. Window displays shall be kept to a minimum for maximum visibility and shall not exceed 25% of window coverage. Window displays and racks shall be kept to a maximum height of three feet including merchandise and can not obstruct the cashiers view to the outside. timed-access cash controller shall be installed. · Install a silent armed robbery alarm. · There shall be no coin-operated games maintained on the premises at any time. · Ail pay telephones shall be located inside the premises. · The petitioners shall be responsible for maintaining the premise free of litter. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at ninety days, six months, and at one year and then annually thereafter by the Police Department for any modification to the conditions of approval. No Loitering/Trespass signs/placards shall be posted in the parking lot. The posted signs must conform to Penal Code Section 602. Schools: No Impact The project site is included within the boundaries of the Santa Ama Unified School District. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a fast food restaurant use. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate project-specific demands for new school facilities. However, the project would be subject to provide school impacts fees to help address cumulative impacts to school services in the School District. 75.B. Page 112 Parks, Other Public Facilities: No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a fast food restaurant. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for additional park facilities or other public facilities. XIV. RECREATION 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? 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. No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a fast food restaurant. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the demands for existing recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional recreation facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Cause an increase in traffic, which-is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion n~nagement agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the traffic projections within the Circulation Element. The Public Works Department has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant project-related traffic impacts or individually 21 Page '113 75.B. or cumulatively exceed any required level of service established by the City or by the County's Congestion Management Program. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact The proposed project involves the construction of a single- story fast-food restaurant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not result in any substantial safety risks related to aircraft traffic. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature Less Than Significant Impact Construction operations associated with the proposed project could result in a short-term increase of construction traffic volumes within the project area. However, the increased level of construction traffic is not expected to significantly affect the capacity of existing roadways in the project area. E. Result in inadequate emergency access Less Than Significant Impact As part of the City's development review process, the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for potential impacts in regards to emergency access. The Fire Department has determined that adequate emergency access would be provided. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity Less Than Significant Impact A total of 34 parking spaces have been provided in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, a reciprocal access and parking agreement allows shared access to an additional 1,200 parking spaces within the Bristol/Sunflower plaza. 75:B. Page 114 G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No Impact The proposed project would not be in conflict with any adopted policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing public transportation facilities. XVI. UTILITIES A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? E. Result in the 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 providers existing commitments. Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Aha and/or the Orange County Sanitation District would provide wastewater service to the project site. The treatment of wastewater would be provided at Reclamation Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley. The proposed project would be required to provide appropriate sewer connection fees with the city of Santa Aha and the Orange County Sanitation District. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for additional wastewater facilities. Mitigation measures have been identified in Section VIII of this initial study to reduce potential impacts to the project area sewer system. The proposed project would not require an increase in wastewater treatment facilities, nor would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 23 Page 115 75.B. facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within a currently developed commercial center with improved drainage facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of surface water runoff generated from the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new drainage facilities that would impact the environment. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for water service over current levels water demand within the project area. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Through the City's development review process, the Public Works Department has indicated that the City would have the ability to provide adequate water service to the project site. No adverse impacts in regards to the provision of adequate water service would be associated with the proposed project. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate t~e project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Aha would provide solid waste disposal service for the proposed project. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for solid waste disposal over current levels of demand within the project area. Additionally, the City has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which would reduce the City's overall demand for solid waste disposal. No significant adverse impacts would be associated with providing solid waste disposal service for the proposed project. 75. B. Page 116 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIcANcE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish, wildlife species, or historic structures in that no fish, wildlife populations or historic structures are known to exist on the project site. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts. The project's incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building code, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and- applicable City Ordinances, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction of a fast food restaurant. The project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation measures have been required for the construction and operation of the proposed project to insure that the 25 Page 117 75.B. project would not have a direct or indirect adverse significant impact to human beings or the environment. XVIII DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. XVIV REFERENCES City of Santa Aha General Plan, September 1982 City of Santa Aha General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No. 97071058, October 1997, Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 City of Santa .Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines, 2001 Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, December 2002 National Register of Historical Resources City of Santa Ana Local List of Historical Resources California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan Flood Rate Insurance Map X0602320038F City of Santa Aha Noise Ordinance City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee 7 5.B. Page 118 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Seismic Hazard Zone Map XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator Page 119 75.B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: McDonalds Drive Through Restaurant II. Project Numbers: ER 2002-254 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Aha, CA 92702 IV. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Boff (7t4)667-2719 V. Location: 3810 South Bdstol Street VI. Environmental Determination Cn the basis of this Initial evaluation, I find that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. AJthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D.[] AJthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. F. [] Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEOA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared eadier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. Si,,qnature Pdnte~ Name -- Date 7mS°;dBc', Page 120 Page 1 of 1 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts, IlL "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level Issues & Supporting Information Sources I. Aesthetics- Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact r-i- [] [] Page 121 75:B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. Agricultural 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 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Air Quality - VVhere ava,able, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or II1. pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or.Congesflon Management Plan? Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? 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 (including releasing emission which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 75.B. Page 122 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. Biological Resources - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse impact, 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 Services? Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? V. Cultural Resources-Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.57 C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? Page 123 75.B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D, Disturb any human remains, including interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incoq3orated Impact those [] [] [] No Impact VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 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? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4, Landslides? Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? Is the project located on strata 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? Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? [] [] [] [] [] [] 75.B. ~'~ Page 124 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where 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? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? !Page 125 7 5. B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substanfially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional soumes of polluted run-off? Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Place housing within a lO0-yaar floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the proJect: A. Physically divide an established community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. Mineral Resources - Would the project: 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Page 126 Page ~ of 1 O Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Xl. Noise -Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XlI. Population and Housing - Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers Of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 127 75;B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Xlll. Public Services 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 rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. Recreation Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks · or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical detedorafion of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [] [] [] [] XV. Transportation I Traffic Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) 75:B: Page 128 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Are sufficient water supplies available tO serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in the 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 provlder's existing commitments? Page 129 75; B. Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact 'k XVlI. Mandatory Findings of Significance Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 75:B: Page 130 Kd~12~9~3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-28 FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3810 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET 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: Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing January 5,2004. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow a drive-through window service for the property located at 3810 South Bristol Street. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on October 27, 2003, and continued the public hearing to November 24, 2003, on Amendment Application No. 2003-08, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28. After conducting the public hearings, the Planning Commission determined that Amendment Application No. 2003-08 is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana, and recommended by a vote of 7:0 that the City Council approve Amendment Application No. 2003-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings, Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community? The proposed McDonald's drive-through facility will contribute to the general well being of the area by providing a new restaurant with amenities available to both pedestrians and vehicles traveling along South Bristol Street. Although similar establishments with drive-through window service exist in the immediate vicinity, the drive through establishment will serve to replace an existing sit-down Page 131 Res°luti°n la restaurant that will provide additional seating, access, and landscaping that will result in an upgrade to the neighborhood and surrounding community. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The drive through window service, in conjunction with the proposed conditions, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons working in the area. The circulation, design, and layout of the proposed drive- though lane has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts that may be generated as a result of the new drive- through lane. Conditions have been incorporated into the project to minimize any adverse impacts that the project might generate as the result of its drive-through use. Conditions for the project will be reviewed after ninety days, six months, one year and annually thereafter to ensure that the business is in compliance with conditions approved for the project. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The drive-through restaurant will replace an existing sit-down restaurant that has not had any major renovation since its construction in 1978. The new restaurant with drive through service, in conjunction with upgrades of landscaping and circulation, will provide both a visual upgrade and new economic activity for this area of South Bristol Street. The overall economic stability of the area will be strengthened with additional commercial services in the area. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code for such use? The proposed restaurant and drive-through window operation will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Aha Municipal Code and design standards for drive through facilities. The drive through lane will meet the stacking lane requirement of 160 linear feet, as required by code. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City?. 75.B. Page 132 The drive-through lane for McDonald's is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of District Center as support commercial, including restaurants, are permitted by right. Although the General Plan supports land uses in adequate amounts and similar establishments in the immediate area continue to exist, the replacement of an existing aged restaurant with a new facility would assist in implementation of the General Plan's Land Use policy number 2.7 promoting the rehabilitation of commercial properties and encouraging increased levels of capital investment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program for Environmental Review No. 2002-254 was approved and adopted in the Ordinance for Amendment Application No. 2003-08 (AA No. 2003-08) adopted this same day. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby, approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3. This Conditional Use Permit is expressly conditioned upon adoption by the City Council of a zoning ordinance amendment rezoning the property located at 3810 South Bristol Street from Commercial Residential (CR)to General Commercial (C2) zoning (AA No. 2003-08). The rights of the applicant under this Conditional Use Permit shall not vest until the effective date of such ordinance. Should no such zoning ordinance amendment become effective, then this Conditional Use Permit is null and void and of no effect. ADOPTED this day of ., 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher City Attomey Miguel A. Pulido Mayor By:. Kylee O. Otto Deputy City Attorney Page 133 . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2004-004 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75.B. Page 134 Resolutio; Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-28 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Aha Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by the 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. A. Plannin.q Division All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 02-54. Any amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division and Police Department for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the conditional use permit must be amended. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2002-254 are incorporated as conditions of approval for this project. The berm and proposed landscaping surrounding the drive-through lane must consist of mature landscaping that will adequately screen the drive- through lane. B. Police Department 2. 3. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of occurrence. Cash register must be visible from the street at all times and shall not be obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent signage. Window displays must be kept to a minimum for maximum visibility and shall not exceed 25% of window coverage. Window displays and racks must be kept to a maximum height of three feet including merchandise and cannot obstruct the cashiers view to the outside. 5. A timed-access cash controller must be installed. 6. Install a silent armed robbery alarm. 7. There shall be no coin-operated games maintained on the premises at any time. 8. All pay telephones shall be located inside the premises and be restricted to outgoing calls when located within the premises. 9. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter. 10. (Modified by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2003.) 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at ninety days, six months, at one year and then annually thereafter by the Police Department for any modification to the conditions of approval. 12. "No Loitering/Trespass" signs/placards shall be posted in the parking lot. The posted signs must conform to Penal Code Section 602. 13. The noise generated from the drive-thru speaker cannot exceed the levels specified in SAMC Section 18-312. MAC ARTHUR Z uJ R1 SUNFLOWER R4 BLVD. C2 ~ City of Costa AVE. C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS O OPEN SPACE RE REAL ESTATE