The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31A - 2100 S. BRISTOL ST. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: FEBRUARY 7, 2005 TITLE: VARIANCE NO. 2004-06 FOR A REDUCTION IN OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET, SUITES B, C AND D - STERLING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, y~PLI= t24J1Z~ APPROVED 0 As Recommended 0 As Amended 0 Ordinance on 1 sl Reading 0 Ordinance on 2nd Reading 0 Implementing Resolution 0 Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and conditioned. file the staff report approving Variance No. 2004-06 as PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On January 10, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-06 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 to allow the expansion of an existing coin laundry facility at 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C and D (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission added a condition to add a full-time attendant on the premises. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. )1.) Stephen G. Hardi Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VC:rb vc\reports\va04-06.cc 31A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 10, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2004-06 FILED BY STERLING EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR A REDUCTION IN OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET, SUITES B, C AND D APPROVED 0 As Recommended 0 As Amended 0 Set Public Hearing For DENIED 0 Applicant's Request 0 Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Verny Carvaj al .$)~}¡¡' Executive ~ctor ~nning Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-055 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-06 as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant The applicant, Sterling Equipment, is requesting approval of a parking variance to allow the expansion of an existing coin laundry facility at 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C and D. Property Description The property is approximately .28 acres in size and is situated on the southwest corner of Saint Gertrude Place and Bristol Street. The property is located within the Bristol Corridor Specific Plan (SP-1) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC). The property is located within an integrated development site that consists of eight buildings encompassing approximately 111,357 square feet of retail, restaurant and medical uses. The laundromat is within an existing multi-tenant retail building totaling 6,000 square feet. As part of an integrated development, the center has a total of 575 parking spaces. Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the north, commercial to the south and east, and multi-family residential to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2) . EXHIBIT A 31A-2 Variance No. 2004-06 January 10, 2005 Page 2 Project Description The applicant proposes to expand an existing coin-laundry facility currently operating in Suite B of the retail building into Suites C and D. The existing 1,260 square foot tenant area, which contains 34 washers and 15 dryers, will be increased to 3,060 square feet in order to increase the available services of the existing coin laundry use. The proj ect will require tenant improvements within the existing buildings in order to create a larger tenant suite with a total of 46 washing machines and 24 dryers. Since the original coin laundromat was approved without the benefit of a conditional use permit, the expansion of the facility requires full compliance with current coin laundromat standards (Exhibits 3 and 4) . Analysis of the Issues The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from Section 41-1350 to allow a reduction in required parking for the expanded laundromat. Based on the City's code requirements, a total of 624 parking spaces are required for the retail center including the proposed coin laundry expansion. A deficiency of 49 parking spaces is anticipated, equivalent to a seven percent reduction. The standards adopted for laundromats in 1995 included a change in the parking requirement for this use from five spaces per 1,000 square feet of area to six spaces per 1,000 square feet of area. Since the available parking supply for the proposed laundromat expansion does not meet this requirement, the applicant is seeking a variance from the code. In order to analyze whether or not the existing parking count would be adequate enough to support the proposed expansion, a parking analysis was prepared by Kunzman Associates, a traffic engineering firm, for the project. The study, using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking methodology, concluded that sufficient on-site parking is available to serve the existing uses and the proposed Laundromat expansion. Further, the parking consultant performed parking lot counts for the existing center and applied the retail parking requirement to the vacant spaces. This analysis also determined that sufficient parking will be provided on the site (Exhibit 5) . The Shared Parking Analysis for the 2100 South Bristol Street Shopping Center was intended to provide an analysis of the parking demand based on the different activity patterns and uses within the center. It reviewed the City's parking requirement for coin laundromats and proposed an alternative demand based on other parking generation factors and/or actual 31A-3 Variance No. 2004-06 January 10, 2005 Page 3 parking usage. Two methodologies were used while conducting the parking analysis. The first methodology was the Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking concept and the second combined actual parking lot counts for the existing land uses plus the vacant land uses per the actual code requirements. Both methodologies concluded that sufficient parking was provided to meet the peak parking demands of the shopping center. The study found that the existing 575 parking stalls available at the shopping center are sufficient to accommodate future parking demand. The number of parking spaces provided is 575, while the maximum number of parking spaces expected to be occupied is 352. A total of 38 percent of the parking spaces were proj ected to be unoccupied with maximum demand based on all uses. The conditional use permit for this project was considered separately at a Zoning Administrator hearing held on December 22, 2004. This conditional use permit is the subject of a separate Planning Commission action agendized for this meeting. The full details related to the conditional use permit are contained in that staff report. The final approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon the approval of this parking variance. In summary, the issuance of a variance will allow a proj ect that will benefit the community by providing an increased level of service to individuals who live and work in the area. Additionally, the expansion of an existing laundromat use will facilitate revitalization of South Bristol Street. As a result, based on the analysis of the project and the project's compatibility with the City's General Plan and applicable development standards, approval is recommended for Variance No. 2004-06 as conditioned (Exhibits 6 and 7) . CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2003-055 has been prepared for this proj ect (Exhibit 8). The Negative Declaration was available for public review from June 21st through July 10th, 2004 with no comments received. The mitigation monitoring program is contained as a condition of approval and has been attached as Exhibit 8 in this report. .~~ ~? Verny Carvajal Associate Planner u~ VC:JM vc\reports\va04-06.pc 31A-4 ST R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 0 ~G RI R1 C2 < "8B ,,[ R1 R1 R1 0 R1 R1 R1 . R1 . R1 R1 R1 R1 I I- C4 en -' f2 en ã: en '" ~¡r - C2 1---""".43' R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R ì R2-PRD ,,-, ~ ,"-" . " II " II ,'...// M1 ,- '-- - '-- '-- '--- 8 ., r-- .-- ; ~ C2 R3 3 R3 RI R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 ~R1 a; §l '-- ~ - - - ~- ,....,,...., R1 ~ ~ 3 R1 0 ~ R1 ~ ~ C4 0 ~ D R1 ~ R1 w R1 AI GENERAL AGRICULTURAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION C-SM COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN CI COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CI-MD COMM. COMMERCIALJMUSEUM DISTRICT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC MI M2 MO 0 P PCD PRD COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RI R2 R3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN R4 RE SD SP ~ ~ VA 04-6 COIN LAUNDROMAT 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET SUITE B, C, AND D A $ý' - - =500 FEET 1. = 1000 FEET p L A N N N G A N 0 B U I EXHIBIT 1 31A-5 L 0 N G A G E N c y . ~ ,J M U L T I F A MIL Y R E SID E N T I A L M U L T I F} MI Y R E I D N T I A L ST. GERTRUDE PLACE t- W W a: t- -..J -..J en « « - - f- f- <:: <:: Q Q - - CJ) CJ) lJ.J lJ.J Ct Ct -..J « - f- <:: ..J lJ.J 0 Q t- - en CJ) æ lJ.J Ct m A r9{' -..J ~ ~ 9 fß Ct :>- -..J ~ Œ ¡:: S :¡ FAST FOOD RESTAURANT VACANT SHOPPING C E N T E R VA 04-6 COIN LAUNDROMAT 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET SUITE B, C, AND D PLANNING AND BUILDING - EXHIBIT 2 31A-6 AGE N C Y ~! :ptD1 ~¡ ------- -~f;;- ~,¡;;.~ f'-. I"'t..Ir.r. LUC.KY HOu5E RE5TAURANT þt:JOO;I' ~ I~ -;i=-lJJ:nTIL ~ - ~I- ~~ I~ 7 I ,r ~ - ~I - I RETAIL5 ð:'I50Sf" ~ ! I~ ,It I~ I'I'IOJ~ÇLSUMMARY: LAN> """ C2 ZONE BUILDING MA 1ERIAI..S: £XTERIOR WALL IS BfD: vaEER I STUCCO IEXlSTING lAI.H)fJ'() AN) TI.E A(X)f EXlSro I.AlN)Ry BlDG.: NOH-SPfW,I(L£D I r I P-..G 1lÆAK00WIt I ~ST.-.OÆ.~~j=~~-~..~ 0/...,..... I ~ l:r:...... ::::= I ~ ~~==~W~ SP:..,==. ~:I 1UO &PACES ~!2_~~s~ 82-4 SPACES 575 SPACES ~ -1 - - _. - G....I'wt\.,. ~[l \~ p-" ~"'$ \C\S~ ---------------------- FOOD 4 LE55 40220 ~ §I~ill þ60s1'wWs RETAIL5 :2~,04ð 'SF eXISTIN6 P"~'NSo I f - 510ï:''WI\LK - . ~ ~H~ EXISTING SITE PLAN ~ 1I'roiI- - ~- - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~~BRI5TOL~ - 5TRE!:~ -I-- - ~ - ~ - ~ - --- - -- - ~ ~ - ~-""".....,.. - 1 - - - -. - - - """11)-""..1- "'-Iw "'-\. ";...4:....... ""''''N<; ''''''''N<; '--M",""" II- -v~.r.- b PROJECT ADDREss 2100 SOUTH BRtSTOl STREET SUITES ø, C & D SANTA ANA, CA h é8 Ii II II p- "-\. {Y¡Q#M? ~ I STERLING PHILLIPS t1111I WESTERN AVE STANTON, CA 80580 (TM)884-1fI88 FAX(7M)~ 0 5;i' .- ~ 21'-0. ~. 12'-0. 14'-0. 21'-0. 1B'-0' 14'-0. SUIT" -~~\I8ID8G I O. I t--T-' ¡~:-i :O:D.: t----i L_.L_f.__, I d. I I 0, I 1---, 1----1 D. I I D. I t----1 8UfÆ8 1----1 D. C08f~nD O. 1---; ~ I----j I D. I I D. I ---, !".-- I . I ~---i D. ~---i L~_J J rw~ rW~ f-w-jf-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w:1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 f-w-1f-w-1 L..JL-.J lIun.. ....... ......c ,~ ....... ......,,- ....... -om... r-l r~1 r~1 r~1 r~1 r;1 I - ~ '-' I ~-------~-------~-------~-______AI . Rt_.,e ""U'tflJI"~ EXISTING BUILDING PIAN PROPOSED COIN-oPERATED LAUNDRY EXPANSION 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET, ø_, ð, c ? 0 SANTA ANA, CA 21'-0. ....... --- .."'" 0 , ~ 21'-0' I D. I I-~-- D. t---- I D. "'---1 I Ð I 1-----1 I D. ----I , . , I---- D. I ~-;'.-¡ I----- D. ...--- , . , 1----1 0 I r~~j lUTE II rw~ f-w-1 f-w-1 f-w-1 f-w-1 f-w-1 I f-w-1 J f-w-1 f-w-1 ~-1 f-w-1 f-w-1 -Y-1 l~.l~J ~. St'-O. 12'-0. r-w~TwTw.~ :: L-~.....!....--,--...J II II II :~=1: II II It SUTEC II II It II r_:J rw~ :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 " f-w-1 "f-w-1 :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 " f-w-1 "f-w-1 :: I f-w-1 ::f-w-1 II :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 " f-w-1 "f-w-1 :: f-w-1 ::f-w-1 " f-;! "rw-1 :: ; -w1 ::/';1'; IIl_.l_l II _.1-J II II II II II It II II II II II !J II II 18'-0. 14'-0. I D. I ~---i I D. I ----/ D. I 1----1 I d. I ----I I þ, t t----i I O. I-----t I D. f ~-;.-¡ ----i I D. I 1----1 I D. I-----i I 0 I ----I L~_J ....... -....... ""RE' ..".,,,'" .....n- I - ~ '-' I L~=:.:.:;:,:~: - - - - - ~" . - - - - - - 9 - - ,,;;;. -~=1Q NOTE: NO PAYPHONI!I WIlL Be INSTAI.U!D INSIDE THE LAUNDI.Y OR EVEN ON nœ PROPERTY AS THE LAUNDRY. ~ GEORGE W. SEITZ ARCHITECT t8023-A SKY PARK CIRCLE. IRVIN(-ëA 92614 949.250.1°18 @ KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING November 8, 2004 Mr. Sean Phillips STERLING EQUIPMENT COMPANY 11816 Western Avenue Stanton, CA 90680 Dear Mr. Phillips: We are pleased to present this parking analysis of the 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C, and D coin laundry project in the City of Santa Ana. This report summarizes our methodology, analysis and findings. We trust that the findings, which are summarized in the front of the report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the City of Santa Ana in evaluating the project. Two methodologies be used while conducting this parking analysis. The first methodology used is the Urban Land Institute's, (ULI) shared parking and methodology two combines parking lot counts for the existing land uses plus the vacant land uses parked at the City of Santa Ana parking code. Figure 1 shows the site location and Figure 2 shows the site plan including parking spaces. FINDINGS 1. Current number of parking spaces provided at the shopping center is 575, and that number of parking spaces will be available after the expansion. 2. Methodology one concludes that the maximum parking demand of 562 parking spaces is less than the number of parking spaces provided, and that the 575 spaces provided are sufficient to accommodate anticipated parking at shopping center. 3. Methodology two concludes that the maximum parking demand of 352 parking spaces is less than the number of parking spaces provided, and that the 575 spaces provided are sufficient to accommodate anticipated parking at shopping center. 1111 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 34 . ORANGE, CA 92868-4667 TELEPHONE: (714) 973-8383 . FACSIMILE: (714) 973-8821 E-MAIL: MAIL @ TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM . WEB: WWW.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM !11\~ 4. Using the two methodologies it is concluded that there is sufficient parking provided. 5. The two methodologies results vary substantially. The reason is that the actual parking demand as measured in methodology two is substantially lower than the City's parking code combined with the Urban Land Institute's .shared parking calculation. Every development has different clientele, different stores, and the clientele has different socioeconomic characteristics. In this case, there is probably more walk in traffic than average and the car occupancy is probably higher than average, both of which reduce the number of parking spaces needed. By surveying the actual peak parking demand for the occupied land uses, essentially real time data was collected versus calculating a peak hypothetical parking demand. MethodoloQV One 1. Based on calculations in this report, a maximum parking demand of 533 parking spaces will occur on weekdays at 7:00 PM, and a maximum parking demand of 562 parking spaces will occur on Saturday from 1 :00 PM. Methodoloav Two 1. Based on calculations in this report, a maximum number of parking spaces needed is 352 parking spaces. METHODOLOGY ONE SHARED PARKING CONCEPT We are pleased to present this shared parking analysis of the 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C, and D coin laundry project in the City of Santa Ana. This report summarizes our methodology, analysis and findings. We trust that the findings, which are summarized below will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the City of Santa Ana in evaluating the project. Findinas 1. The land uses include retail, restaurant, doctor/medical, and coin laundry. 2. 3. Based on the City of Santa Ana parking code, 624 parking spaces are required. Current number of parking spaces provided at the shopping center is 575. 4. The retail parking demand peaks mid afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. The restaurant parking demand peaks at lunch and in the evening on both weekdays and weekends. The doctor/medical parking demand peaks mid 31&10 afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. The coin laundry parking demand peaks mid afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. 5, Because the peak parking demands for the various land uses are non- coincidental, there is substantial opportunity for shared parking to occur. 6. Based on calculations in this report, a maximum parking demand of 533 parking spaces will occur on weekdays àt 7:00 PM, and a maximum parking demand of 562 parking spaces will occur on Saturday from 1 :00 PM. Proposed Parkina This traffic study is for the 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C, and D coin laundry. The shopping center contains approximately 91,522 square feet of retail, 11,765 square feet of restaurant, 2,550 square feet of doctor/medical, and 5,520 square feet of coin laundry. Parkina Code The City of Santa Ana parking code requirements are listed in Table 1. Based on the parking code, a total of 624 parking spaces will be needed if all land uses simultaneously generated their maximum parking demands. Shared Parkina This parking analysis utilizes what is known as the shared parking concept. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) recommends a procedure for calculating shared parking. The ULI recommended procedure is utilized in this analysis. The idea of a shared parking analysis is that if the various land uses have peak parking demands at different points in time, or on different days of the week, then the number of spaces required is not the sum of the parking requirements for each land use, but rather less. If the peak demands for the various land uses are non-coincidental, then there is an opportunity for sharing of parking. To determine the degree to which shared parking can occur, the cumulative hourly parking demand of the land uses is calculated at all points in time throughout the day for both weekdays and weekends. With the parking demand. known by hour and day, then the maximum peak parking demand during a seven day week can be determined. The maximum expected parking demand during the seven day week is then used as a basis for determining the number of parking spaces needed. The retail parking demand peaks mid afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. The restaurant parking demand peaks at lunch and in the evening on both weekdays and weekends. The doctor/medical parking demand peaks mid afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. The coin laundry parking demand peaks mid afternoon on both weekdays and weekends. Because the peak demands for the various land uses are 31A.r11 non-coincidental, there is substantial opportunity for sharing of parking. To determine the degree to which sharing of parking can occur, the cumulative parking demand of the land uses has been calculated at all points in time throughout the day for both weekdays and Saturday. Table 2 shows the expected peak parking demand of the land uses for both weekdays and Saturday. Examination of Table 2 shows when each of the land use's parking demand peaks, and then shows when the cumulative parking demand peaks for all uses combined. For weekdays the maximum parking accumulation occurs at 7:00 PM and is 533 parking spaces. For Saturday the maximum parking occurs from 1 :00 PM and is 562 parking spaces. The percentage information for the various land uses in Table 2 was estimated by Kunzman Associates after discussion with City Staff members Vincent Fregoso and Verny Carvajal. The percentage information shows how much of the maximum parking demand occurs in anyone hour. The parking space demands in Table 2 were calculated by multiplying the percentages by hour times the peak parking demand for each land use, and then summing over the various land uses to determine the cumulative parking demand by hour of day. As can be seen from the above discussion, 562 parking spaces are needed to satisfy the parking demand at all points of time in the week. The current number of parking spaces provided at the shopping center is 575. M5lliQ.DOLOGY TWO (MAXIMUM OBSERVED PLUS PARKING COJ15 FOR VACANCIES AND EXPANDED USES Kunzman Associates has been asked to conduct this parking analysis for the 2100 South Bristol Street shopping center to determine if adequate parking spaces are provided for the project site. The shopping center currently provides a total of 575 parking spaces. Figure 2 illustrates the shopping center site plan. The coin laundry is an existing store that will be expanded to have a total of 3,000 square feet. In addition, 21,814 square feet of retail is currently unoccupied within the shopping center. This report summarizes our methodology, analysis and findings. We trust that the findings, which are summarized in the front of the report, will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the City of Santa Ana in evaluating the projects parking. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A. 31"412 Findinas 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The project site is located at 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C, and D in the City of Santa Ana. The coin laundry is an existing store that will be expanded to have a total of 3,000 square feet. In addition, 21,814 square feet of retail is currently unoccupied within the shopping center. The maximum number of oècupied parking spaces today at the shopping center is 225 parked vehicles on Saturday between 1 :00 PM to 1: 15 PM. (see Table 6). Three days were counted and this is the peak parking demand. The shopping center currently provides a total of 575 parking spaces. Based upon the City of Santa Ana Parking Code requirements, the proposed coin laundry use will require 3,000/167 or 18 parking spaces. The unoccupied retail stores will require 21,814/200 or 109 parking spaces. The total additional parking spaces needed at the shopping center above the existing Saturday peak parking demand is 127 parking spaces. The weekend (Saturday) peak parking demand is expected to be a total parking demand of 352 (225+18+109) parking spaces for the entire shopping center. Parkina Code The City of Santa Ana Parking Code requirements are included within Appendix B. The coin laundry is an existing store that will be expanded to have a total of 3,000 square feet. In addition, 21,814 square feet of retail is currently unoccupied. Based upon the City Parking Code requirements, a total of 1 parking space for each 167 square feet of floor space is required for the proposed coin laundry use and 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of floor space is required for the unoccupied retail stores. The City Parking Code requirements indicate that the proposed coin laundry use will require 3,000/167 or 18 parking spaces. The unoccupied retail stores will require 21,814/200 or 109 parking spaces. The total additional parking spaces needed at the shopping center above the existing Saturday peak parking demand is 127 parking spaces. Future Land Uses Table 3 exhibits the future land uses for the 2100 South Bristol Street shopping center and the parking required per the City Parking Code. The Parking Code calculations assume that the shopping center is one hundred percent occupied for all land uses. The amount of required parking spaces per the City of Santa Ana Parking Code is 624 parking spaces. 31~413 Parkina Survey To quantify the existing parking demand for the 2100 South Bristol Street shopping center, a parking survey was conducted on three different days. The existing parking demand was determined by surveying the existing facility at 15-minute intervals on Saturday (January 10, 2004) from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Tuesday (January 13,2004), and Wednesday (January 14, 2004) 'from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. In addition, the shopping center parking lot was divided into four (4) parking zones as shown on Figure 3. Normally, weekend parking is higher than weekday parking at shopping centers. The existing parking surveys are shown in Tables 4 to 6. As indicated in Table 4, the maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the shopping center is 225 parked vehicles on Saturday from 1 :00 PM to 1: 15 PM. The maximum number of occupied parking spaces on a Tuesday was 190 parked vehicles from 6:30 PM to 6:45 PM (see Table 5), and 170 parked vehicles were counted on a Wednesday from 7:00 PM to 7: 15 PM (see Table 6). Anticipated Actual Maximum Parkina Demand for Future ShoppinQ Center Table 7 exhibits the existing actual parking demand, plus the Parking Code demand for the unoccupied 21,814 square feet of retail, plus the Parking Code required for the 3,000 square feet of coin laundry proposed for the shopping center. The future Parking Code calculation assumes that the shopping center is one hundred percent occupied. The maximum number of occupied parking spaces today at the shopping center is 225 parked vehicles on Saturday from 1 :00 PM to 1: 15 PM. The 21,814 square feet of retail at 1 parking space per 200 square feet of floor space requires 109 parking spaces. The 3,000 square feet of coin laundry at 1 parking space per 167 square feet of floor space requires 18 parking spaces. The weekend (Saturday) peak parking demand is expected to be a total parking demand of 352 (225+18+109) parking spaces for the entire shopping center. The total amount of parking spaces needed is 352 parking spaces. Conclusions The existing on-site parking is sufficient at 2100 South Bristol Street shopping center to accommodate future parking demand, based upon the parking survey analysis. The number of parking spaces provided is 575, and the maximum number of parking spaces expected to be occupied is 352 parking spaces. A total of 38 percent of the parking spaces are projected to be empty in the shopping center when the maximum parking occurs. 31A414 It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on this project. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES QJ P-j)JÁ Carl Ballard Senior Associate #2906b 31"415 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES AA/~ ~a-v-. William Kunzman, P.E. Principal . Professional Registration . Expiration Date 3-15-2004 Table 1 Future Shopping Center Parking Required Per Code Required Parking Code Parking Land Use Quantity Units 1 Requirements2 Spaces Retail 91 ,522 TSF 5/1,000 458 Restaurant 11 ,765 TSF 10/1,000 118 Doctor/Medical 2,550 TSF 6/1,000 15 Coin Laundry 5,520 TSF 6/1,000 33 Total 111,357 TSF 624 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 See Appendix B. 31A:f16 Table 2 Cumulative Parking Demand by Hour and Day Retail Restaurant Medical OIIice Coin Laundry Maximum Space Maximum Space Maximum Space Maximum Space Demand = 458 Demand = 118 Demand = 15 Demand = 35 Total Percent of Parking Percent of Parking Percent of Parking Percent of Parking Parking Hour of Maximum Spaces Maximum Spaces Maximum Spaces Maximum Spaces Spaces Day Demand Needed Demand Needed Demand Needed Demand Needed Needed Weekday 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 10 46 5 6 10 2 20 7 60 8:00 AM 20 92 5 6 90 14 40 14 125 9:00 AM 40 183 10 12 90 14 60 21 230 10:00 AM 70 321 20 24 90 14 70 25 382 11:00 AM 80 366 30 35 90 14 60 21 436 NOON 90 412 70 83 60 9 50 18 521 1:00 PM 90 412 70 83 60 9 50 18 521 2:00 PM 90 412 60 71 90 14 60 21 518 3:00 PM 90 412 60 71 100 15 70 25 523 4:00 PM 80 366 50 59 100 15 70 25 465 5:00 PM 80 366 70 83 90 14 60 21 484 6:00 PM 80 366 90 106 80 12 60 21 506 7:00 PM 80 366 100 118 90 14 100 35 533 ' 8:00 PM 80 366 100 118 80 12 100 35 531 9:00 PM 60 275 100 118 60 9 80 28 430 10:00 PM 30 137 90 106 30 5 30 11 259 11:00 PM 20 92 70 83 10 2 10 1 177 MIDNIGHT 0 0 50 59 0 0 0 0 59 Saturdav 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 5 23 5 6 5 1 20 7 37 8:00 AM 5 23 5 6 5 1 40 14 44 9:00 AM 20 92 10 12 5 1 60 21 125 10:00 AM 50 229 10 12 50 8 70 25 273 11:00 AM 80 366 40 47 60 9 60 21 444 NOON 90 412 70 83 50 8 40 14 516 1:00 PM 100 458 70 83 50 8 40 14 562 ' 2:00 PM 100 458 60 71 70 11 50 18 557 3:00 PM 100 458 50 59 80 12 70 25 554 4:00 PM 90 412 50 59 80 12 70 25 508 5:00 PM 80 366 60 71 70 11 60 21 469 6:00 PM 70 321 90 106 60 9 60 21 457 7:00 PM 60 275 100 118 60 9 100 35 437 8:00 PM 50 229 100 118 60 9 100 35 391 9:00 PM 40 183 100 118 40 6 80 28 335 10:00 PM 40 183 100 118 40 6 30 11 318 11:00 PM 10 46 90 106 10 2 10 4 157 MIDNIGHT 0 0 70 83 0 0 0 0 83 The highest weekday demand is 565. The highest weekend demand is 561. . = Peak Parking Demand 31~417 Table 3 Future Shopping Center Parking Required Per Code Required Parking Code Parking Land Use Quantity Units 1 Requirements2 Spaces Retail 91,522 TSF 5/1,000 458 Restaurant 11 ,765 TSF 10/1,000 118 Doctor/Medical 2,550 TSF 6/1 ,000 15 Coin Laundry 5,520 TSF 6/1,000 33 Total 111 ,357 TSF 624 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 See Appendix B. 3~~418 Table 4 Saturday (January 10, 2004) Parking Count Number of Parked Vehicles Parking Parking Parking Parking Time Period Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Total Parking Spaces Available 159 179 157 80 575 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM 41 61 60 6 168 10:15 AM - 10:30 AM 42 64 62 7 175 10:30 AM - 10:45 AM 44 58 61 8 171 10:45 AM - 11 :00 AM 50 62 68 4 184 11:00 AM - 11:15 AM 51 64 70 3 188 11:15 AM -11:30 AM 49 63 71 3 186 11 :30 AM - 11 :45 AM 52 66 74 1 193 11 :45 AM - 12:00 NOON 55 67 72 1 195 12:00 NOON - 12:15 PM 56 70 74 0 200 12:15 PM -12:30 PM 53 79 75 0 207 12:30 PM - 12:45 PM 54 86 74 0 214 12:45 PM -1:00 PM 57 84 76 0 217 1:00 PM -1:15 PM 65 83 77 0 225 * 1:15 PM - 1:30 PM 69 79 70 0 218 1:30 PM -1:45 PM 71 72 71 1 215 1 :45 PM - 2:00 PM 64 69 73 1 207 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 51 66 71 1 189 2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 54 73 70 1 198 2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 55 82 68 1 206 2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 57 81 70 1 209 * = Maximum number of occupied parking spaces. 3~~419 Table 5 Tuesday (January 13, 2004) Parking Count Number of Parked Vehicles Parkfng Parking Parking Parking Time Period Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Total Parking Spaces Available 159 179 157 80 575 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 51 59 42 0 152 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 54 67 47 0 168 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 56 85 2 1 144 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 59 73 47 0 179 6:00 PM - 6:15 PM 53 62 43 0 158 6:15 PM - 6:30 PM 55 69 45 0 169 6:30 PM - 6:45 PM 52 86 52 0 190 * 6:45 PM - 7:00 PM 55 83 49 0 187 7:00 PM - 7:15 PM 62 84 42 0 188 7:15 PM -7:30 PM 56 82 41 0 179 7:30 PM - 7:45 PM 48 83 48 0 179 7:45 PM - 8:00 PM 46 81 46 0 173 * = Maximum number of occupied parking spaces. 3jA'420 Table 6 Wednesday (January 14, 2004) Parking Count Number of Parked Vehicles Parking Parking Parking Parking Time Period Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Total Parking Spaces Available 159 179 157 80 575 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 57 59 48 0 164 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 56 57 50 0 163 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 59 56 54 0 169 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 57 51 52 0 160 6:00 PM - 6:15 PM 53 53 57 1 164 6:15 PM - 6:30 PM 49 58 58 1 166 6:30 PM - 6:45 PM 50 61 54 0 165 6:45 PM - 7:00 PM 48 60 60 0 168 7:00 PM - 7:15 PM 45 63 62 0 170* 7:15 PM - 7:30 PM 47 60 55 0 162 7:30 PM - 7:45 PM 42 57 53 0 152 7:45 PM - 8:00 PM 41 55 49 0 145 * = Maximum number of occupied parking spaces. 3 ~~421 Table 7 Maximum Expected Peak Parking Demand Parking Required Code Parking Land Use Quantity Units1 Requirements2 Spaces Currently Occupied 86,543 TSF 225 Land Uses Actual Maximum Parking Demand3 Unoccupied Retail 21,814 TSF 5/1,000 109 Coin Laundry 3,000 TSF 6/1,000 18 Total 111,357 TSF 352 1 Determined by surveying existing shopping center. Maximum existing demand is 225 parking spaces on Saturday between 1 :00 PM to 1:15 PM. (see Table 2) 31~422 Variance No. 2004-06 January 10, 2005 Page 1 of 2 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. The South Bristol Commercial center is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial development. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Traffic Engineers, has determined that sufficient parking will be provided for the proj ect during times of peak demand. The variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is consistent with similar surrounding commercial and professional uses. 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 tenant's ability to provide a much-needed upgrade to an otherwise outdated and undersized laundromat tenant space. The tenant will bring the existing and proposed tenant areas up to current laundromat standards. 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 proposal is an existing use that will not generate additional operational impacts to the surrounding areas. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which incorporated various mitigation measures to ensure that any impacts are reduced to below any level of significance. 3~~!2~ Variance No. 2004-06 January 10, 2005 Page 2 of 2 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 coin laundry expansion are in conformance with City development standards for laundromat uses and is consistent with the General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. 31A-24 VARIANCE 2004-06 JANUARY 10, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions for Approval Variance No. 2004-06 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the 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. The proj ect shall DP No. 03-55. remain in compliance with Site Plan Review Mitigation Measures 2. Construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect that Best Management Practices would be employed for all exterior construction activities. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit, the proposed proj ect shall pay Sewer Connection fees to the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the Orange County Sanitation District. !ffil!is MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNClLMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa B ist 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 IM-20) P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 www.san!a-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: Sterling Coin Laundry Expansion Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing coin operated Laundromat facility and a request for a variance to reduce the required amount of onsite parking. Project Location: 2100 South Bristol Street Project Number: ER 2003-55 Public Review Period: 6-21-2004 to 7-10-2004 Hearing Date: 7-14-2004 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, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 7-10-2004. Please direct your comments to: Dan Batt, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA,92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Vemy Carvajal at (714) 667-2700. RHCB\lnotice\er 3~~286 CS 606-2 MA YOR Miguel A. Pulido MA YOR PRO TEM Breit E. Franklin COUNClLMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa B ist 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 .,',,~:Î","~~, f~~'~, :f",', .,-, " , " ",", ';1, ~£êj(,'" t-:r";:¡;,',"t.~.; ~~m¡:",,' . ',"', '4~.il~,', ',' ",' t.f~'~,; III ';j',".:"~;tt¡"f(, ' .Áfj.~~~~U~'~~~~~:I.'~'~."'.'\"~~~~~<r'J.~!~j¡Jt~~.,,~<, 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: ER 2003-55 Applicant: Sterling Equipment Company, 1816 Western Avenue, Stanton, CA Project Location I Address: 2100 South Bristol Street Project Title I Description: Sterling Laundry Facility Expansion/ The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing coin operated Laundromat facility and a request for a variance to reduce the required amount of onsite parking. 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: fJ()-/~ I / This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 31Ar27 CS 606-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 2003-55 Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing coin operated Laundromat facility and a request for a variance for a reduction on the onsite parking requirements. Setting The project site is approximately .28-acres in size and is situated on the southwest corner of St. Gertrude Place and Bristol Street. Presently, located on the project site is an existing 6,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building. The project site is surrounded by multiple family land uses to the north, commercial retail to the south and east and multiple family land uses to the west. The project site is situated within the Bristol Corridor Specific Plan and as a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The existing building is portion of an existing retail shopping center. A total of 575 parking spaces are currently provided at the center. Proposed Project The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing coin-laundry facility. The existing 1,260 square foot tenant area would be increased to a total of 3,060 square feet. The project would require tenant improvements within the building to create a larger area for the proposed expansion of the existing laundry facility. A total of 46 washing machines and 25 dryers would be provided in the expanded laundry facility. No additions or modifications would occur to the exterior of the existing building. In accordance with the City's parking requirements, with the proposed project a total of 624 parking spaces would be required in the existing retail shopping center. The project is proposing a total of 575 parking spaces. 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 1 31A~28 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, 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 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? No Impact The project site is included within the Bristol Corridor Specific Plan and subject to the design guidelines provided in the specific plan. The proposed project would not involve any modifications to the exterior of the existing building. Therefore, 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 of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impac t The project site is currently improved with existing on- street lighting. Implementation of the proposed project 2 31Atr29 would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the project area. II. AGRICULTURE A. B. Convert Prime Far.mland, Unique Far.mland or Far.mland 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 Far.mland, to non-agriculture use? 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. III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? No Impact 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 3 31A~O and growth impacts beyond those identified planning programs and/or local general plans. in regional The proposed proj ect 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 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-ter.m 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 4 31~1 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 additional air pollutant emissions that would exceed air pollutant emission projections evaluated within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Short-ter.m constructed Related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate mater I 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 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 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 5 31Aa-32 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 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 proj ect would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. The majority of the construction operations for the project 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? 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 6 31Aa-33 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. A. CULTURAL RESOURCES Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 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. B. C. D. Historical Historical structures Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of for.mal 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. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS A-1. 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 Impac t 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 7 31A!r34 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/lnglewood 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 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 project. 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. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential seismic hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. 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 modifications to the interior of an existing building. Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not increase the risk for liquefaction impacts. Additionally, the 8 3~~35 proposed proj ect standards of the Uniform Building hazard impacts to would be subj ect to the seismic safety Uniform Building Code. Compliance with the Code would reduce potential liquefaction 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 proj ect site. Therefore, implementation of the proj ect 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 Impac t 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. Construction operations for the proposed project would not require excavation and grading activities. 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 the loss of a unique 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? 9 3~~36 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 moderate 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 not available for the disposal of wastewater is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? No Impac t 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 environment through the routine disposal of hazardous materials? the public transport, or use the or B. Emi t 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 hazardous materials would reduce potential hazardous 10 3~Am37 material safety impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 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 is currently improved. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department 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? 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 is 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 proposed project is a single story building that 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 A. E. 11 Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 311A~38 I. N. R. o. P. S. Result in an increase receiving waters? in pollutant discharges to Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant of which the body is already ~paired? Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Have a potentially significant environmental impact or surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The primary source of water quality pollutants associated with the operation and construction 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. To minimize the potential for nuisance flow impacts during construction operations Best Management Practices would be employed to minimize potential construction-related water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure 12 . Construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect that Best Management Practices would be employed for all exterior construction activities. . Prior to issuance of a building permit the proposed project shall pay Sewer Connection fees to the City of 3iAm39 Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the Orange County Sanitation District. 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. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? Q. 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? D. Create or contribute runoff water which, would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stor.m water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? L. Result in increased ~pervious surfaces and associated runoff? M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. No Impact The project site is located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. The proposed project would introduce additional amounts of impervious surfaces onto the project site. Existing rates of surface water runoff would not increase. Based on preliminary analysis of drainage conditions and facilities on the project site and surrounding area, the City's Public Works Department has 13 31A~AO H. indicated that it is feasible facilities within the project adequately drain the proposed that existing area would be project. drainage able to F. 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? 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? Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact According to the Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320257H, 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. J. K. Result in significant alteration of receiving quality during or following construction. water Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? Less Than Significant Impact The majority of the construction operations for the proposed project would be interior tenant improvements. Construction activities would not involve any earthwork operations that would uncover soils that would facilitate potential soil erosion. Additionally, the potential for construction operations to degrade storm water runoff would be minimal. 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 14 3~1 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 consistent with the General Plan and conditionally permitted in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any planning programs or policies in the City. 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. XI. NOISE A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general 15 3~AA2 c. plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial per.manent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 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. E. For a project located within or where such a plan has not miles of a public airport or an airport land use plan been adopted, within two public use airport, would 16 3~~3 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. 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? B. C. 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: Less Than Significant Impacts 17 3~4 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 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, the proposed project would be subject to the development and performance standards in Section 41-199 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the operation of laundromat facilities. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact The project site is included within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a laundromat facility. 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. Parks, Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a laundromat facility. 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 3~~45 No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a laundromat facility. 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? No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a single-story laundromat facility. 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 No Impact 19 3~~46 Implementation of the proposed project would not increase vehicle or pedestrian hazards within the project area. E. Result in inadequate emergency access No 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 Based on the City's Parking Code a total of 624 parking spaces would be to meet the parking demands of the existing center, currently vacant building area within the center and the proposed laundry facility. Presently, the existing commercial shopping center is providing a total of 575 parking spaces, a shortage of 49 parking spaces. To support the request for a parking variance, a parking demand survey was prepared, to document the parking demands of the existing commercial shopping center. The parking survey was conducted on three different days, at IS-minute intervals. The survey concluded that a total of 352 parking spaces would be needed to meet the parking demands of the existing shopping center, the proposed laundry facility and the currently vacant building area in the center. According to the parking survey, the existing 575 parking spaces at the shopping center would more than meet the actual parking demand for the center, the proposed laundry facility and the current vacant building area. No adverse parking impacts would be associated with approval of the proposed project. G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No Impact 20 ~1~47 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 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 with the city of Santa Ana and the Orange County Sanitation District. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for additional wastewater facilities. C. Require or result in the construction of new stor.m water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 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. 21 3i~8 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 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. The proposed project would be subject to connection fees for commercial clothes washing machines. 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 per.mitted 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 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. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. 22 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 31A~49 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. 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 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. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? No Impact The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing Laundromat facility. The project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. 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 23 31A~60 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 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, June 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 0602320257H 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 3tA~1 ~~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. II. Project Title: Sterling Coin Laundry Expansion Project Numbers: ER 2003-55 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 Bott (714) 667-2719 V. Project Location: 2100 South Bristol Street Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A. D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. -d Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant r-- 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 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. 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 CEQA 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 Sign~O previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. ~~-/ SignThY\~-tÇ) Printed Name June 15. 2004 Date db\Env Form CEOA Chklst Page 1 of 1 31A~52 ~~~A 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 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 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 Impacf' 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 D frf B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 D % 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? 0 0 D D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ~ in the area? 0 0 D db\Env Form CECA Chklst J Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT B 31A~3 ~~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 California 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 K )1 ~ III. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or 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 applicable 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~4 D D D D D D D D D r¥ M ~ ~ D D D Page 2 of 12 ~~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 (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? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst A IT ACHMENT B 3~~5 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 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 # ff At' ~ J{f Af A Page 3 of 12 ~~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? dblEnv Fonn CECA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 3i~6 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 D D D D D 0 Less Than Significant Impact D D 0 ~ D 0 D D 0 No Impact ~ 0 fr{ 0 0 þ( ~ ~ ~ rX Page 4 of 12 ~~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D ~ D environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or D D ~ D 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 D D D ~ 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 D D ~ D 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 D þ( D 0 quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or D D D J{ 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 (Le., 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)? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~7 Page 5 of 12 ŒW~AfA 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 a 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? E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? F. 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? G. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? H. 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? I. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash) J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? K. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? L. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 3iAm58 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D 0 D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Ç( D D D y D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D ')( ~ D No Impact ~ ~ D ~ ~ if D D D J{ Page 6 of 12 aIT~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? N. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list: If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant of which the water body is already impaired? o. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? S. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? 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, specific 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 local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Issues & Supporting Information Sources db\Env Fonm CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31Am59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Impact 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 )1 ~ 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact K 0 0 0 x 0 0 ~ 0 J( ^ No Impact Page 7 of 12 ~~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne 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 of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Issues & Supporting Information Sources dblEnv Form CECA Chldst A IT ACHMENT B 3~Jb60 0 0 0 D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D 0 0 0 D 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless ?{ ~ ~ )ë[ 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 ~ P£ ~ K No Impact Page 8 of 12 Œn~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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?) Issues & Supporting Information Sources db\Env Form CECA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31Am61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J( Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ A 0 No Impact Page 9 of 12 an~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 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? 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. 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 provider's existing commitments? Issues & Supporting Information Sources db\Env Form CEOA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31Þce62 D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ p( ~ )( ß Less Than Significant Impact 0 f( ft( ~ 0 K 0 0 0 D 0 No Impact Page 10 of 12 aIT~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 3~Ae63 Mitigation Incorporated 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 ){ 0 Page 11 of12 KO -1/20/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004-06 FOR A REDUCTION IN OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 2100 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET, SUITES B, C, AND D BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. B. C. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance 2004-06, for a reduction in the off-street parking requirements at 2100 South Bristol Street, Suites B, C, and D to allow for expansion of an existing coin laundry facility. Variance No. 2004-06 came before the Planning Commission on January 10, 2005 for a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. 2004-06 the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have been established: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, 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. The South Bristol Commercial center is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial development. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Traffic Engineers, has determined that sufficient parking will be provided for the project during times of peak demand. The variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is consistent with similar surrounding commercial and professional uses. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 31A-64 Resolution No. 2004-02 Page 1 of 4 D. The granting of the variance will preserve the tenant's ability to provide a much-needed upgrade to an otherwise outdated and undersized laundromat tenant space. The tenant will bring the existing and proposed tenant areas up to current laundromat standards. 3. 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 proposal is an existing use that will not generate additional operational impacts to the surrounding areas. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which incorporated various mitigation measures to ensure that any impacts are reduced to below any level of significance. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City since the coin laundry expansion are in conformance with City development standards for laundromat uses and is consistent with the General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. . In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2003-055 has been prepared for this project. The Negative Declaration was available for public review from June 21st through July 10th, 2004 with no comments received. The mitigation monitoring program is contained as a condition of approval. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Variance No. 2004-06 as conditioned in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Staff reports and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Leo, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle (6) None (0) None (0) None (0) Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: 31A-65 Resolution No. 2004-02 Page 2 of 4 Glenn Mondo Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No.2005-02 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 10, 2005. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana 31A-66 Resolution No. 2004-02 Page 3 of 4 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2~ Variance No. 2004-06 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the 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. Plannina Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 03- 55. 2. The facility shall provide a full-time attendant. Mitiaation Measures 3. Construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect that Best Management Practices would be employed for all exterior construction activities. 4. Prior to issuance of building permit, the proposed project shall pay Sewer Connection fees to the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the Orange County Sanitation District. Exhibit "A" 31A-67 31A-68