The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31A - 1901 N. TUSTIN AVENUE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION _CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ~ ~ CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: JUNE 7, 2004 TITLE: VARIANCE NO. 2004-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2004-03 TO ALLOW A BAGEL ME RESTAURANT AND RETAIL SPACE APPROVED D As Recommended D As Amended D Ordinance on 1" Reading D Ordinance on 2"' Reading D Implementing Resolution D Set Public Hearing For ~ Q.¡gt2~ -ITV MANAGER CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report approving Variance No. conditioned and Minor Exception No. 2004-03 as conditioned. 2004-02 as PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION .After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission on May 10, 2004, by a vote of 7:0, approved and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Environmental Review No. 99-152, adopted a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-02 and Minor Exception No. 2004-03 as conditioned. The project involves the remodeling of an existing building into a Bagel Me Restaurant and retail space to be located at 1901 North Tustin Avenue. The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. v /1 J(; Stephen G. Har ng Executive Director Planning & Building Agency AN:rb an\plancomm\va04-020me04-03.cc . 31A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action m ~w ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 10, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2004-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2004-03 TO ALLOW A BAGEL ME RESTAURANT AND RETAIL SPACE APPROVED 0 As Recommended 0 As Amended 0 Set Public Hearing For DENIED 0 Applicant's Request 0 Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Ann Hsin-An Ni -40 ~~~i~ector W'" M"',,, RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 99-152. 2. Adopt a resolution approving variance No. 2004-02 as conditioned. 3 . Adopt a resolution conditioned. approving Minor Exception No. 2004-03 as DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Bagel Me Corporation Minor Exception No. building into a Bagel North Tustin Avenue. is requesting approval of Variance No. 2004-02 and 2004-03 to allow the remodeling of an existing Me Restaurant and retail space to be located at 1901 Property Description The property is located within the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) with a floor area ratio of 0.5. This site is surrounded by a combination of commercial and residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the south and west, and multi-family residences to the east (Exhibits 1 and 2) . The property is approximately 0.68 acres in area, flat, rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The property is located on the east side of Tustin Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Lenita Lane; both Seventeenth Street and Tustin Avenue are designated arterial streets in the General Plan Circulation Element. EX~~'À-:2 ~ariance No. 2004-02 ~inor Exception No. 2004-03 May 10, 2004 Page 2 Project Description The project involves the remodeling of an existing building into a 4,027 square foot restaurant and 2,435 square foot retail space. The interior seating capacity for the restaurant is designed for approximately 88 patrons and an outdoor patio area is proposed that can accommodate 35 patrons. Operating hours for the restaurant will be from 6: 00 a. m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week (Exhibits 3 and 4). The design of the project with the recommended conditions of approval demonstrates a quality appearance appropriate for restaurant and retail uses and satisfies the design standards set forth in the Urban Design Element. The proposed building elevation will be enhanced by providing stone veneer, tile roof, french doors and awning at rooflines (Exhibits 5 and 6). These architectural features will accentuate the exterior elevation in order to provide consistency with the architectural styles _along Tustin Avenue. The existing landscape planter will be re-planted ~ith a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover on both Tustin Avenue and Lenita Lane. Access to the project will be provided from Tustin Avenue and Lenita Lane. A total of 49 parking spaces will be provided on-site while 52 spaces are required by code. A minor exception for the reduction of three parking spaces is required. The variance request is to allow a reduction in required landscape setbacks from 15 feet to 8 feet along Tustin Avenue and from 15 feet to 5 feet along Lenita Lane. Analysis of the Issues The proposed restaurant and retail uses are permitted in the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district. The proposal meets all development standards except for parking and the front and side yard setback requirements. The variance request is to allow a reduction in required setbacks along Tustin Avenue and Lenita Lane. Pursuant to Section 41-368, 369 and 372 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, a landscaped yard area of 15 feet is needed along all street frontages. The building was constructed in the 1950s and was previously used by the Auto Club. The building has been vacant for over five years. Pursuant to .ection 41-683 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, if a non-conforming uilding is vacant for 12 consecutive months, any subsequent use must conform to current development standards, including setbacks. 31A-3 Variance No. 2004-02 Minor Exception No. 2004-03 May 10, 2004 Page 3 The existing setback along Tustin Avenue varies from 8 feet to 20 feet and from 5 feet to 11 feet along Lenita Lane. Since the proposed project primarily consists of tenant improvements with no building expansion, the nonconforming setbacks is proposed to remain. Due to the age and configuration of the building, it is not feasible to remove a portion of the building to meet the current setback and landscape standards. A new parking lot is proposed and complies with the current setback and landscaping standards. The applicant proposes to install new landscaping materials within the front and side yard setback areas as well as the parking lot landscape planters. It is recommended that the required trees be upgraded to a 36-inch box size and shrubs to a 5-gallon size throughout the project to compensate the landscape front and side yard reduction. Minor Exception - Pursuant to Section 41-1340 and 1341 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, required parking for all of the uses on the site totals to 52 parking spaces. The calculation is as follows: Use Parking Requirement Total Square Footage Number of Space Required Retail 1 space per 200 square feet 2,435 sq. ft. 12 Eating Establishment 1 space per 100 square feet 4,027 sq. ft. 40 Total 6,462 sq. ft. 52 A total of 49 parking spaces will be provided on-site, representing a three parking-space (5.8 percent) deficiency. The parking spaces on- site will be utilized in a shared manner. As the development is intended to serve the existing commercial and residential uses adjacent to the property, it is anticipated that some of the patrons to the retail store and eating establishments will be pedestrians. Additionally, the peak hours for the Bagel Me Restaurant will differ from retail uses. Therefore, the reduction of three spaces is supported. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. One of the goals of the Land Use Element is to preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proj ect has been designed to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The facility will contribute to the general well being of the community by providing food and beverage service to residents and visitors as well as enhancing the economic stability of the area by converting a vacant building into a vital, active commercial development. 31A-4 ~ariance No. 2004-02 ~inor Exception No. 2004-03 May 10, 2004 Page 4 In summary, the proposed Bagel Me Restaurant and retail space complies with the provisions set forth in the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district and Land Use Element of the General Plan. Approval of Variance No. 2004-02 and Minor Exception No. 2004-03 is recommended (Exhibits 7 and 8). CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 99-152 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 9). ~~, '. , ~n HS1n-An N1 ,-,ssociate Planner u~ AN:JM an\plancomm\va04-020me04-03.pc . 31A-5 g ,,., ~ 0 L; ~ Ii-Ð~ ~ ':~t 1 A1 ~ C' :""00 1III ~ A1 ~ -ï-y 60-111-7200 =,':' 0 ~,-I -. R1 ~ ~ $I{ R1 ~), ~t;;1o----5~ !? R4 RJ.720(I !i:.., ~ R4 - -- ia:. (1.- '- R1'72~ :I S 0($' 1:(--;;;1I~ , R1-B R1-B '" C5 Al \'"..11 ::;::::\\.....~",;:J \\11 ¡1(1 A11: (I 1(11 :1:: :-:..:'~~-""J ~. ~. ~"." R1 ! R1 R1 A1Jliii . ! A1 " 60-A1-7200 --~,~ -"11."--311' I ~IRH2GGJ,.. ... iL ,.=I'" ~lC511- I~ C5 ~¡ --~~\} ..'--~~¡;; ~I_J '-, --, ~ \ I -J l J r- '--'....\ !:! ~-'r~-~-ï----=-"'i:""-J;=='::::r-''i\\.. ì R1' l' R4 ~9'J~-=-~I~'!:\r~I~-JI~-r~L Sll' '..~ ~,\ _r--,- - RI-PRD I (I "11 . -=--"11-1 rl~r 'i i KRi'I'D ~ ,. "-", - P " I )\II"-1í"...~ R1 R1 R1 AR'I I, ~_II II ), l-..2 g ,..' ~ II) II-~\ '" " " R4 R1 I R1 ,..... ~T R1 , -::- R1 C5 ! . C5 ! C5 R1.B . L IA1 AI.B r'. " '" . ! ¡ ! 1- "' 0 i. R1 A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION C-5M COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL Cl.MD COMM. CQMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL A 1" '" 1000 FEET R4 R1 II R1 , ~ RE ri' : 00 tJi "~Î~~ , I ..,---;----:-'''.' 1..'''.'''¡'''Jo---..-- ¡ C5 os P R4 R4 1-----1"= 6O-AI' i .7200- - , ,. ' " J -. ¡¡60-~ ":ç i ~ 7200 !!- R4 OS RO. " 60-1'11-7200 A1 d.:.. . " ^' , ~ ôO-R1-7200 I . . 'co ;:g::- ,- . i-iir- R3 R RI R1 j -- f-R3 - I SO-52 I Cir of R1 is 0--" f'f~ I-"\. I- ' R1 ", \ OJ R3 ,A1 ' \ I R1 \ Ic\~ ~^'~ I , ~ t:\\ "'- PROJECT SITE t C1 C2'\\- / rcš UUlJ L 17TH ST. ~[ !V(L Œ!~~ ~~~ n1lI Tustin ~ , . R1 C5 C5 III ~r~ ! ¡ C1 C1 ~ u _.~~ R4 i 1 ~I I~ I . I -_J "~'¡:PÃÌj ì L;:-='::~I ~ ~ ~)_J "' , ¡¡i z ¡;¡ ~ ~ . R4-PRO P P CR GC M1 M2 MO 0 P PCO PRO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 R2 R3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL lWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN R' RE SO SP VA 04-2/ ME 04-3 BAGEL ME RESTAURANT 1901 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE N N G A A .w - - ::;500 FEET p N y L A N D B U I EXHIBIT 1 31A-6 L D N G A G E N c . " ;: ;: ." '" CONDOS 0 ~ '" Z " c::. " c ~ - APARTMENTS m ,. :u '" Q ~ ~ 0 0 (f Q ;: .... :Þ ~ C '" -I c: LENITA LANE '" (f ,. '" ::! z - ~ '" "< " '" 0 '" APARTMENTS :Þ Q ,. < '" m COMMERCIAL ~ Z (f ., c: ~ -I - m :u ,. I ~ m ~ I m . " ~ -I 0 VACANT .,. VACANT VACANT <" A . VA 04-2/ ME 04-3 BAGEL ME RESTAURANT 1901 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE A Ji'ý' PLANNING AND BUILDING AGE N C Y EXHIBIT 2 31A-7 Ut "! "",' ,~ I , --'-.,. ~ ., ¡, , 0 " ì ~ , I ~I J I < ~ ...,~ ... " ~c-;"F-' < .: ~J 0 " .' '~ < . , [I .,--/ " . , , r~ ,. ~ " "~ 1-.>'- ~~! 1:)-"" 000 If~5-T I ~~;¡lll' I "~ I' " ~T~~~--,t:~f:i t,~~li ',,' ",~ t----~~ ~:"~- ':~=~T -- -n::l ~ - ¡ ~ "'\ ~i. . I ¡: I!. 0 >< . £ >< - ()¡ III t IJJ ~! I D Ii? ~k m -- j n m -- i '~¡,.,:\ - I)---~- -~Ii \;-. II I/- 1¡¡",\,;, \;. ~ I i~~ --' 'LJfj:~ - IIJ~-----;:-,\\, r ' ~.f ~"-'- ,~ ""1 ><.J -- i_-d\.\ '\'./L- !<II!. .---..---::-- ~~.---:--.", . "", '"F' ~" .\' " fr'" (, ,j¡., 1,.1 "/",->- , ,-.'" . , \_,~,) -"""'''. J\~~,o§.. . " ':" ~d:-;:ø t'o '--::;:.\' . : ;. .-:--..- :."'ó.;ç' ~ # ~~e-:---/ I , I, , t.~~~' Q~. .. "'0!'1-,..J - , ;nÑàÃviciìWiiilÕ61. 111ÐØ. . ~~ y.~ 1t\'1 ~~ ." ~""'S:.... 8'".-1'.-::" rl~:~-- rlfn--~:,,~~~~~~~ -~;-~~I~'~~~1~~Fl~:"1J . -- I II- of , ¡ . ""'" . "" '*' , 'ClL I ___,.n_J ?; ,: "--;;:---~ t . !Ij -------11] 1j 1] I'j -~'-----'1 ~~~/ ~---- ---_.---- ~F ~~ ~ / ~--/.~ ,~----- ~// -~~ ~ /Vjf~~-3 "_ï5~~iil-~- . " " 0 " -;--1; , IIJ~, f -- r -.--.-.-_x ffi . " Œ j~ , ,~ " . . " --1 . 00 , ;<"1\;: " ,0-,,,' ----- < . --- " , c , < co a T 0 i ~ .0--- . J , I ..; ., "~ o[\O;:c:¡ X_II'- :~~~ ';;:'t:. ~I~J: 81)~ '.0 . . ¡f¡~ ~~ "I 2tc æ-r ~ >. xlj ;~-~ ~'«'¡~ -~, M~ Sl.t,1'o u.. -('II. . '11 1¡ Z ~ .,íu =s " ,~ Q. < . W ... ¡;; " "' ~ù ~\ !hI;! t ~'~ Iii "-'~ \ì~ 0 ";,n iii~ "f :i~ :: 'f." r;...'- < ~ ~~; r. <" ~ ~ ~ .¡'~ ß ~~ ~ , . ~~ 9~ .om It:> ,. x ~ß ~~g "~,nJ~) YII'I-t! ~3~~- <I" Þ. ". ..j"'~«u, :r~'!i\)m ~~~~~, "'I~~\-:t. , < " " . < " ¡::.~ ", III\[' 3!m g ~~ ~ <a. c:) ." ~I Ill!,; ~ :r.< !h::¡ ;;: ~ ~r;c >1I,þ 0(>- ~¡J b_l~ , 0 ~ "' ~ "' " c' , " B . " !i >2 5,¡j Q ~r5 t},. :}/¡)!J Ð.< -( mQ_-o. ,~z. on ~b~ ~ ~ ., < . , ~ ~ "' " ? ,/ ~ I I i \ -- I ~ I 1/- 1',-/ I ( I,' 1'-; 1-,--- I' ¡ 1--, I J I .-. ~_._----" f ] .¡¡ i ~' '. t ~ .~ ; , , ; ..-...---"-...-- ""'.'" "'--3~ï3ÐŸ!Í -It- l I 1"1.. --.- --" -'.--. ~ , ¡ , t ., J. , ; , ~ m 2 ~ f ; ~ ~-- - ¡;I---.--~ ,,': ~ dtJ i ~ ----- -coo-_o-_oo-c-_o=--\ijþ ¡ , ~ ,;1 , J , -':.:.~.:.--::.!_,::."":.:.::::':..§. , :' 'ÇJ ..' " 1_, . ", --', '" ¡\ _co-_cc~,_occco'-~ ,- " \ I' "11 "'. >-t . ~I> 11-'"' I' '. i _:_c,~--_ooo-_oo,-~ . . ¡ ,0 , _I:~--~--:---Î !. I t.A,~ --\~(,;§>;: !-- ~ ._-------. - -]]] .' \ -~/~ I~ .,/^"",,------------ .-. '-.J' //~ /--~ ;: .~. ~//- \i__,.]:,(~~,.,:¡'j ~!' - ~------~------/---~ ~,., ---- '-------- ..--- /-'"VA .ga-âlir-3 ~¡ /- +T~ì- l~, L/~!;) \/~ ',:::<ê ~ III _.- -- "?)Y .....~: - ----/ I !I --=-j ~~.:;.(;:. .~\<> - '-'ŽS:~~~ :~~~:~ ,. :;.\~i\ (~c~:' _...,--;.~- -- '~;f0 <.:: &;. (,'\<~) lì /;--;,c.,; ¡f--1 >,/';. I ~ ~~<2> I' ,I \'[~~\ -. ~Š~~? z :s II.. 0:: 0 9 .... I , '-- ''''.''1<$ ~ljJ ulli.l šm!ß~~¡ I li ~t II ~f ~i H . ~ if ~ I I l- => 0 CJ) 1 U~ $j! ~'. H~ ¡;¡ l¡~ t ,H hW U ~:¡ ¡;. y:) 'WNV Y.LNVS 3nN3^VNI1SnllN J.06. 31'1139V8 -ç ¡ ¡ $1 ~ ~i d:i 11 ;H~ !~ -!i2, ~ VA ~~~~., OO¿Z6 '(J 'NU.SI1J. -aA18 .LHOdAl3N .:;gOCI.. ?- NOJ.LYH0d80C> :m '!3~Ya ¡:'. ~ ~ .. ¡ . --- ,,,,," I- CJ) W ~ ." L ~ ~ H J \"'/ _¿i i ,.'7. tt- ... .~ (' ~ . ,. )1 d 0 P -2 '. ! . ¡ CJ) Z 0 ¡:: ~ W ...J W a::: 0 a::: w E ~ . . . I , ä , ! n U L:;,: . ) ~~. (:~ "'J.""". 'IJ ... J: l- n:: 0 z j in :In I:ItlVti NOI1'\'HOdMO...l ~4~1;:¡~\"t; 1'-. .S; ã;. - , 11&1 ihl ~,',.J\;"" ..{ ~ '<> , y, \_~: VA au~~-3 I- ~ .W ~ (j) Z 0 I- ~ W ....I W n:: 0 n:: w I- íJS Variance No. May 10, 2004 Page 1 of 1 2004-02 Findings of Fact A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property. The building was constructed in the 1950s and was previous used by the Auto Club. The current setback along Tustin Avenue varies from 8 feet to 20 feet and from 5 feet to 11 feet along Lenita Lane. Due to age and roof configuration of the building, it is not feasible to remove a portion of the building to meet the current setback and landscape standards. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a well-designed restaurant and retail space that is consistent with the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property because the proposed restaurant and retail space will not generate additional operational impacts to surrounding property. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. D. That the granting of a General Plan of the City. variance will not adversely affect the The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City since the proposed restaurant and retail space was designed in conformance with City zoning, Development, and General Plan requirements. VA 04-2IME 04-3 31 'Ä~f'l7 ~inor Exception ~ay 10, 2004 Page 1 of 1 No. 2004-03 Findings of Fact A. _. . That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at minor exception with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of Tustin Avenue and Lenita Street, which is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial developments. The number of parking spaces provided will be sufficient since the site will be used by pedestrians from the adjacent retail, office and residential buildings. That the granting of a minor preservation and enjoyment of rights. exception is necessary one or more substantial for the property The granting of the minor exception is necessary to develop the property with a well-designed restaurant and retail building that is consistent with the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district. C. That the granting of a minor exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property. materially surrounding The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property because the proposed restaurant and retail space will not generate additional operational impacts to surrounding property. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project approval. D. That the granting of a minor exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the minor exception will not adversely affect the General plan of the City since the proposed coffee house building is designed in conformance with the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district development standards and General Plan requiremer!1A-13 MAY 10, 2004 PAGE 1 OF2 Conditions for Approval Variance No. 2004-02 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. 2 . 3 . The proj ect shall DP No. 99-79. remain in compliance with Site Plan Review After proj ect occupancy, include the minimum level time of occupancy. landscaping is to be maintained to of plant materials installed at the The required trees shall be shrubs shall be upgraded project. upgraded to 36-inch boxed size and to 5-gallon size throughout the 4. The equipment and its screening needs to be redesigned to integrate within the existing rooflines or be incorporated at grade subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 5. The proposed legerstone on the west and south building elevations must be upgraded to a natural stone and repeated on the north elevation subj ect to the approval of the Planning Manager. 6 . A window installation detail is the Planning Division for review permit. required to be submitted to prior to issuance of building 7. Vine pockets are required to be added along the south property line abutting Armstrong Garden Center. VA 04.2/ME 04-3 3 fAUEl'2J8 ~AYI0,2004 WIoAGE 2 OF 2 8. 9. 10. All walls where window openings are closed are required to be re-stucco'd. The exterior stucco is required to be a smooth, hand-troweled like finish. Public payphones, if provided, may buildings or the interior of the site. only be located within Any amendment to this variance must be Planning Division for review. At this determine if administrative relief is variance must be amended. submitted to time, staff available or the will the Mitigation Measures 11. . 12. 13 . 14. Prior to issuance of demolition paint survey shall be prepared Department for review. permits, an asbestos and lead and submitted to the Planning All testing, handling and removal of asbestos containing building materials and lead paint shall be performed by a certified California State Licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Building plans for the proposed project shall identify that Best Management Practices shall be employed during construction operations. Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project is fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the Building and Safety Division. B. Police Department 1. . The existing building and parking lot must conform with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing projects lighting, door/window locking devices and addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. 31A-15 MAY 10, 2004 PAGE10F2 Conditions for Approval Minor Exception No. 2004-03 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this minor exception. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the minor exception. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the minor exception. A. Planning Division 2. 4. 1. The project shall DP No. 99-79. in compliance with Site Plan Review remain Any amendment to this variance must be Planning Division for review. At this determine if administrative relief is variance must be amended. submitted to time, staff available or the will the 3 . The required trees shall be shrubs shall be upgraded project. upgraded to 36-inch boxed size and to 5-gallon size throughout the The equipment and its screening needs to be redesigned to integrate within the existing rooflines or be incorporated at grade subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 5. The proposed legerstone on the west and south building elevations must be upgraded to a natural stone and repeated on the north elevation subj ect to the approval of the Planning Manager. 6 . A window installation detail is the Planning Division for review permit. required to be submitted to prior to issuance of building 7. Vine pockets are required to be added along the south property line abutting Armstrong Garden Center. 31A-16 A\1AY 10, 2004 ~AGE20F2 8. 9. 10. All walls where window openings are closed are required to be re-stucco'd. The exterior stucco is required to be a smooth, hand-troweled like finish. Public payphones, if provided, may buildings or the interior of the site. only be located within Any amendment to this variance must be Planning Division for review. At this determine if administrative relief is variance must be amended. submitted to time, staff available or the will the Mitigation Measures 11. . 12. 13 . 14. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, an asbestos paint survey shall be prepared and submitted to the Department for review. and lead Planning All testing, handling and removal of asbestos containing building materials and lead paint shall be performed by a certified California State Licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Building plans for the proposed project shall identify that Best Management Practices shall be employed during construction operations. Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project is fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the Building and Safety Division. B. Police Department 1. . The existing building and parking lot must conform with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code condi tions will require that the existing proj ects lighting, door/window locking devices and addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. 31A-17 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNClLMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio ~ \",~úcation 1st t.. CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK Of THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy PLANNING & BUilDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-2D> P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana. California 92702 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Bagel Me Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a variance and minor exception to allow the remodeling of an existing building into a 4,027 square foot restaurant and a 2,435 square feet of retail space. Project Location: 1901 North Tustin Avenue Project Number: ER99-152 Public Review Period: 3-22-2004 to 4-20-2004 Hearing Date: 4-26-2004 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 4-20-2004. Please direct your comments to: Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-~O, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Dan Bott at (714) 667-2700. RHCB\lnotice\er VA 04-2/ME 04-3 EXHIBIT 9 31~1_138 c.5 eo&2 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS . Claudia C. Alvarez Usa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio ~ ~ CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M~20) P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa.ana.org IIOÑ Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number; Applicant: ER 99-152 Gary McArthur, Bagel Me Corporation I. Project Location I Address: 1901 North Tustin Avenue Project Title I Description: Bagel Mel The proposed project is a request for a variance and minor exception to allow the remodeling of an existing building into a 4,027 square foot restaurant and a 2,435 square feet of retail space. 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: \)CW\~ Environmental Coordinator Date: ~ Iî\ 20~ . This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. "--.~¡-.;. . 31Ä2_oH~ ~ ~ ~......? Initial Bagel Me Study/Mitigated Negative ER 99-152 Declaration Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for a exception to allow the remodeling of an into a 4,027 square foot restaurant and of retail space. variance and minor existing building 2,435 square foot Setting The project site is located at 1901 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana Orange County, California. The project site is located on the east side of Tustin Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Lenita Lane and is surrounded by a commercial building to the north, south and west and single-family residences to the east. The project site is approximately 0.68 acres in area, flat, rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The project site is located within the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) with a floor area ratio of 0.5. Project Description The project involves the remodeling of an existing building into a 4,027 square foot restaurant and 2,435 square foot of retail space. The interior seating capacity is designed for approximately 88 patrons and an outdoor patio area is proposed that can accommodate 35 patrons. Operating hours for the restaurant would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. The proposed restaurant would provide sit-down services to its patrons. The existing building would be remodeled to enhance its aesthetic appearance. Additional landscaping would also be provided along the frontage of the property. Access to the project would be provided from Tustin Avenue and Lenita Lane. A total of 49 parking spaces would be provided on- site. 1 31Ã~230 . . . ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed project based on the City of Santa Ana CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by reference the analysis and findings provided in the City of Santa Ana 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? B. Damage scenic resources, trees, rock outpourings a State highway? including but not limited to and historic buildings within No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is void of 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 project would not result in adverse impacts to any scenic resource. C. 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 Cabrillo Park 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 proposed project would incorporate a number of design elements 0 enhance the aesthetic appearance of the existing 2 31.a:~~~9 building. These design elements would include façade improvements, new windows, roof repairs and additional landscaping. Through the City's development review process the proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the intent of the City's Urban Design Element. Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site or the surrounding area. D. Create a new source which would adversely the area? of substantial light or glare, affect day or nighttime views in Less Than Significant Impact The project site is currently improved with existing on- street lighting. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the project area. II. AGRICULTURE B. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use? 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? A. C. 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. 3 31 Âg~2~9 . . . III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Plan? Than Significant Impact applicable Management Less 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 District. 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 proj ections in the General Plan. The proposed project would be considered to be consistent with the regional and local growth projections and would not be in conflict with the air quality objectives established in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. B. Violate any stationary source air quality contribute to an existing or proposed air violation? standard or quali ty 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. 4 31PÃ:23 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 Impacts 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 proj ect are consistent with the air pollutant emission projections within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in additional air pollutant emissions that would exceed air pollutant emission projections evaluated within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. 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 majority of the construction operations for the proposed project would be interior tenant improvements. A minimal amount of exterior work would occur. Less than significant short-term air quality impacts would be associated with implementation of the proposed project. C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 5 3IfÄ~:¿4 . non-attainment under an applicable ambient air quality standard? federal or state Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and 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. D. Expose Sensitive concentrations? receptors to substantial pollutant Less Than Significant Impact . Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold for potentially significant long-term or short-term air quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed proj ect 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 proj ect would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. The majority of the construction operations for the proj ect would be interior tenant improvements. Less than significant construction-related odor impacts would occur. 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? 6 31a~-~~ 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 combination with the known or probable 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 of a historical resource 15064.5? change in the significance as defined in Section No Impact According to the Santa Ana Local Register of Structures and the Federal Register of Structures, there are no historically significant located on the project site. Historical Historical structures C. Cause a substantial adverse change in the of a unique archaeological resource Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy paleontogical resource or site? Disturb any human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries. significance pursuant to B. a unique D. interred 7 31P1(~žG . . . Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known cultural resources on the project site. The project site is currently improved. The probability for the discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction operations would be low. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS A-I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the proj ect 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 extend towards the project 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 subj ect to a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of O. 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 proj ect. However, the seismic risks at the project site would not be considered significantly different from other areas in the southern California region. The proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8 3i~~~1 Compliance with potential seismic than significant. the Uniform Building Code would reduce hazard impacts to a level considered less 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 low potential for liquefaction hazard impacts. The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing building. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the risk for liquefaction impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Compliance with 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. B. Would the project result in substantial soil or the loss of topsoil? erosion No Impact 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. 9 31Ä~1§ 8 . . Construction operations for the proposed project would not require excavation and grading acti vi ties. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. c. Would the project geological feature? result in unique the of loss a No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the proposed proj ect does not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any unique geologic feature. D. 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? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the project site consists of Chino Silty Clay Drained Soils that have low shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated steel and low potential for corrosion of concrete. Implementation of the proposed project would not require any grading or excavation activities and therefore would not be subject to geotechnical constraints on the project site. E. Where sewers are wastewater is the of septic tanks systems? not available for the disposal of soil capable of supporting the use or alternative wastewater disposal 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. 10 3i~~1~ VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Create a significant hazard to environment through the routine disposal of hazardous materials? the public transport, or use the or Implementation of the proposed project would involve renovations to the existing building on the project site. The City's building records indicate that the building was constructed in the 1950's. During that period of time asbestos containing building materials and lead paint were common building materials. Both asbestos containing building materials and lead paint could pose health hazards if they are inadvertently released into the air and inhaled by employees during construction operations. Mitigation Measure . Prior to issuance of demolition permits, an and lead paint survey shall be prepared and to the Planning Department for review. asbestos submitted . All testing, handling and removal of asbestos containing building materials and lead paint shall be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California occupational Safety and Health Administration. B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 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 11 3'~~:ro . hazardous materials would reduce potential material safety impacts to a level that is than significant. hazardous considered less C. 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 was formerly an office use. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department and the State Regional Water Quality Board the project site is not a hazardous waste site. D. 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? . No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an accident potential zone, clear zone or FAA Notification Area. Implementation of the proposed project would not pose a hazard to people working or residing within the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated . 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 12 31 Äe_~o139 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 on the construction site could be degraded. To minimize potential water quality impacts Best Management Practices would be employed during construction operations. Additionally, commercial kitchens such as provided in the proposed project could potentially produce 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 and potentially resulting in adverse water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure . Building plans for the proposed project that Best Management Practices shall be during construction operations. shall identify employed . Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project shall be fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. B. 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 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? 13 31Ä~jr~' . 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 located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. Based on preliminary analysis of drainage conditions and facilities on the project site and surrounding area, 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. However, to help address cumulative drainage impacts in the project area, the proposed project would be subject to Drainage Assessment Fees. E. Place housing within a lOO-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 lOO-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a lOO-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? . G. F. No Impact According to the Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320030F, 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. 14 3'~~~ 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 consistent with the General Plan. According the City's Zoning Code the proposed project would be required to provide 52 parking spaces and a 15-foot landscape setback along all street frontages. The proposed project is currently inconsistent with these site development standards. The proposed project would require approval of a minor exception to reduce its parking requirements by 3 spaces and variance to allow a reduction in required landscape setbacks from 15-feet to 5-feet along Lenita Lane and from 15 feet to 8-feet along Tustin Avenue. With approval of the variance and minor exception, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's Zoning Code. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 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 A. 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. 15 3"~l.j~ . XI. NOISE c. 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. A. Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General 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 permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the project area vicinity. . B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? D. A substantial temporary ambient noise levels in levels existing without or periodic the project project. increase in vicinity above 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. 16 31Ä:'~059 E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Plan, the project site is not located within an is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Land Use area that XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING A. B. C. 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. 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. 17 Page 19 of39 31A-36 . Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impacts The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police 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 police protection services. The proposed project would also be subject to the City's Building Security Ordinance. Compliance with the Building Security Ordinance would improve building security and help reduce demand for police services. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact . The project site is included within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified School District. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate project-specific demands for new school facilities. However, the proposed project would be subject to provide school impacts fees to help address cumulative impacts to school services in the School District. Parks, Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a restaurant use. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for additional park facilities or other public facilities. XIV. RECREATION A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. . 18 Page 20 of 39 31A-37 No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a restaurant use. 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 A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management 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 or cumulatively exceed any required level of service established by the City or by the County's Congestion Management Program. C. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a single-story restaurant use. 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 19 31°Ä~jf§ . The proposed project would require reconstruction of existing driveway approaches and sidewalks. 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 increase vehicle or pedestrian hazards within 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 . The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. According the City's Zoning Code the proposed project would be required to provide 52 parking spaces. The project is proposing a total of 49 parking spaces. The proposed project would require approval of a minor exception to reduce its parking requirements by 3 parking spaces. According to the Planning Department the reduction of 3 parking spaces would not result in adverse parking impacts. 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? 20 31"A2~39 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 deter.mination 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 Ana 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. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for additional wastewater facilities. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within an area that is currently improved with 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. D. 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 21 3f~~4ð 8 . . 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. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? G. Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana 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, contains programs to 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. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No Impact 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. 22 3f)~~~19 B. 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 proj ect' 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. C. 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 and operation of a restaurant use. 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 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 Ana General Plan, September 1982 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No. 97071058, October 1997, Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 23 31Ã2~42 . 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, March 2004 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 0602320030F . City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program seismic Hazard Zone Map XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator . 24 :ffA~43 "fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. II. Project Title: Bagel Me Project Numbers: ER 99-152 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bolt (714) 667-2719 V. Location: 1901 North Tustin Avenue Environmental Detennination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fmd that: A. D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B.~ Although 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. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standands 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. E. D 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. F. D Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEOA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant ~ect~viOUSIY discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR \s~: b, prepared. ~~ ;,~zpDf Signatu~V\. ~ Date Printed Name md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 3 '~:'~4 Page 1 of 1 8 . . æmSANTA ANA . Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. 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 Impacf 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 Impacf' 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. III. "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. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics - Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 j¿{ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 A to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character A or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views >¥ in the area? 0 0 0 md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 Page 1 of 10 31Ä~~5 '"fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. 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.) D D D D D D D D D ~ ,r2( ~ Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or III. pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract? C. 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? A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicabie Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? C. 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)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? mdlmsword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 31X;:41f D D D D D D D D ,Ø( ~ J¥ fr{ D D D D Page 2 of 10 . . . "fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. Biological Resources - Would the project: 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 (inciuding, 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? D. Conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources, preservation policy or ordinance? or ordinances such as tree V. Cultural Resources - Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 Page :,0 of39 31A-47 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact sr 0 0 0 0 0 A K No Impact [J ~ ~ ~ ~ >( 0 0 Page 3 of 10 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. 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? B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? D. 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? E. 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? nid\mswordlenvcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 31aÄ~~ä Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [) 0 K 0 0 J; )( R A Page 4 of 10 . ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. 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? . D. 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: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. 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)? . md\rnsword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 31Ã:4g39 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ßl D D D j( D Less Than Significant Impact D ~ D D D D No Impact D D ftí ~ D ~ Page 5 of 10 anfA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additionai sources of polluted run-off? E. 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? F. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. 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? IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? B. 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, speciflc plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. Mineral Resources - Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a locai general plan, speciflc plan. or other land use plan? md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 31:S:~~èj Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Slgniflcant Impact Ç( M 0 0 0 0 A: 0 0 No Impact [) 0 M Þr' ~ ßf 0 fr{ >r Page 6 of 10 8 ønlA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources XI. Noise - Would the project result in: A. 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? . E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. Population and Housing - Would the project: A. 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)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere? of people, replacement . mdlmswordlenvcheck.docI1.15.99 31'~:~31 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ Ä J¥ D D D D No Impact D D D D M ~ ~ ~ Page 7 of 10 "fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources XIII. Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation I Traffic A. 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?) md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 3PigA:Š2 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact If 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ä No impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Jff 0 Page 8 of 10 8 . . ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. 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)? XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicabie Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or resuit in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. 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? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E. Resuit 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 provider's existing commitments? md\msword\envcheck.doc\1.15.99 31Ä~~~ Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact çf k Ä jd ft( D ø:- 'Z ~ ft( ~ No Impact D 0 D D D ;r D D D D 0 Page 9 of 10 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 31";6::54 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ß{ ~ D ~ M No Impact D D ft( D D Page 100110 . . . BAGLE ME MITIGATIOPN MONITORING PROGRAM ER 99-152 MITIGATION MEASURE Prior to issuance of demolition permits, an asbestos and lead paint survey shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department for review. All testing, handling and removal of asbestos containing building materials and lead paint shall be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California occupational Safety and Health Administration. Building plans for the proposed project shall identify that Best Management Practices shall be employed during construction operations. Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project shall be fitted with a TIMMING Prior to demolition permits During construction Prior to Building Permits and during construction Prior to Building Permits RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Building/Planning VERIFICATION Building/Planning Building/Planning Building/Planning 3iÄ:5~ grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. ifÄ:g6