HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-040 - Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
KO-03/25/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-24 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW
A HEALTH FACiliTY FOR USE OF THE PROJECT RESiDENTS;
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2004-05 AS CONDITIONED;
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004-11 AS CONDITIONED TO REDUCE
THE REQUIRED SETI3ACKS; APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2004-
06 AS CONDITIONED; CONSENTING TO A COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS
ACT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 EAST FIRST AMERICAN
WAY (COUNTY MAP NO. 6556)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds. determines
and declares as follows:
A.
13.
Coa$tal Rim Propertie$ is requesting "PPfov,,1 of a copditiopal U$e permit,
development agreement, tentative tract map, variance and zoning
ordinance amendment to allow the construction of two residential high rise
buildings with 278 condominium units and 13,000 square feet of retail
space at 200 East First American Way.
The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 22, 2004, and by a vote of 5:0 (De La Torre
and Sinclair absent) voted to recommend that the City Council:
1.
Approve and "dopt the Mitigated Negative Decl"ration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-215.
Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2004-03.
Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.
2004-05.
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
as conditioned.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as
conditioned.
Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned.
6.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 1 of 61
7.
Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned.
C.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 has been filed with the City of Santa
Ana seeking to allow the construction of a health facility for the use of the
project residents. Pursuant to SD-43, Health Facilities are permitted uses
subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
1.
Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain
findings.
I.
Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community?
il.
The proposed private health facility for the Geneva
Commons project will provide a service to the
residents by making fitness equipment and
community meeting $pace available for the future
tenants. Conditions of approval have been included
to ensure the facilities are available for the
homeowners only.
Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the
Particul"rcase be detrimental to .the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity?
iiI.
The proposed health facility will not be detrimental to
persons residing and working in the area as the use
will not create any negative or adverse impacts but
will provide an additional amenity to the Geneva
Commons development.
Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties
surrounding the area?
The propos!'id facility will be situated within the
Geneva Commons development. This amenity will
reinforce the economic viability of the project and will
assist in identifying the project as a viable residential
community.
iv.
Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
Resolution 2005-040
Page 2 of 61
The project will be in compliance with all applicable
provisions of Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code as well as the provisions of the SD-43
zoning district.
v.
Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or
any specific plan of the City?
The proposed project will not adversely affect the
General Plan as residential development and ancillary
uses are permitted within the District Center (DC)
general plan designation.
D.
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 (County Map No. 16556) has been filed
seeking approval of a tentative tract map for condominium purposes.
1.
To adopt a Tentative Tract Map, California Government Code
Section 66474 requires the following findings:
I.
The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and
improvements are consistent with the District Center
designation on the General Plan and are otherwise
consistent with all other elements of the General Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is consistent with the
land use designation and density prescribed in the
General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the
surrounding land uses in the area.
il.
The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all
applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes
as well as other applicable City ordinances.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is in keeping with the
provisions of the $ite plan review (DP No. 04-26) and
Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code,
all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and
development standards for the site.
iii.
The project site is physicaily suitable for the type and density
of the proposed project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is proposed for a 3.1-
acre parcel of land within the Specific Development
Plan No. 43 (SD-43) zoning district. This designation,
as amended, P!'irmits the construction of high-rise
condominiums on the site. Therefore, the site has
Resolution 2005-040
Page 3 of61
iv.
been determined to be capable of supporting the type
and density of the proposed project.
The design and improvements of the proposed project will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of
this map or by the design and improvements of the
project. Environmental Review No. 2002-215 has
been prepared for this project and has identified
mitigation measures aimed at reducing any
environmental impact associated with this project.
The design or improvements of the proposed project will not
cause serious public health problems.
v.
vI.
The design and improvements associated with this
project have been prepared to comply with minimum
City standards. The street system has been designed
to public ... street standards and will accommodate
emergency vehicles. All other improvements have
been designed to mitigate any serious problem
resulting from this project.
The design or improvements of the proposed project will not
conflict with theeåsements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of property within the proposed
project.
Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 will not
create conflicts with any easements necessary for
public access through the subject property, as no
such easements currently exist. Public access will be
allowed to the site through the entrance and with
homeowner authorization.
E.
Applicant has requested approval of Variance No. 2004-11 to reduce the
required setbacks from 30 feet along any street frontage to a 15 foot
setback on Imperial Promenade and a 20-foot setback along MacArthur
Boulevard.
1.
The City Council determines that the following findings, which must
be established in order to grant a variance from the provisions of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have been established:
I.
That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location,
Resolution 2005-040
Page 4 of 61
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.
il.
Due to the unique characteristics of the lot, including
the shape and 10-foot change in grade, the strict
application of the setback requirements would deprive
the lot of development privileges. In order to
accommodate the required parking for the project, å
parking structure must be provided. The application
of the setback requirement would result in the
removal of parking for the residentiai development
and a severe parking shortagl'i for the project. The
reduced setback will be mitigated through the addition
and upgrading of architectural and landscape
materials within the remaining setback.
That thl'i granting of a variance.. is necessary for the
preservation arid enjoyment of one or more substantial
property rights.
The granting of the setback variance will allow the
applic¡;¡ot the ability tq cons\ruct two new residential
high-rise towers ana site that is located within a
master planned development.
iiI.
That the granting of a variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding
property.
The setback variance will not be detrimental to the
surrounding area as the sett¡ack will be laOdscapl'id to
be compatible with the setbacks of the devølopment.
Further, the setback variance is consistl'iot with a
variance granted in 2000 for the DoubleTree Hotel
located directly west of the project site.
iv.
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 City's General Plan in any way as the land use
designation of District Center (DC) encourages the
construction of high intensity land uses such as the
proposed Geneva Commons project.
Resolution 2005.040
Page 50f61
F.
The Applicant is requesting site plan approval for the project (Site Plan
Review No. 2004-06). The zoning designation for the subject property is
Specific Development Plan No. 43 (SD-43).
1.
2.
3.
Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires
review of all. plans within a specific development plan area to ensure
the project is in conformity with the Specific Plan.
The project is in compliance with all applicable development
standards outlined within the Specific Development Plan (SD-43).
The project ha.s been determined to be in compliance with applicable
parking,. landsc"ping . and architectural provisions governing the
projeçt, with thl'i. exception of the setback which is addressed in
Variance No. 2004-11 above.
Section 2 Pursu¡;¡nt to PuþlicUtilitie$C9deSections 21670 and 21676, the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds the project to be consistent with the
purposes of the State AeronauticsAct:
A.
How does this project provide for the orderly development of JWA?
1.
Re$oiution 2005-040
Page 6 of 61
The. City of $ant¡;¡ Ana has considered the long-range development
plans that exist for JWA.
I.
Th¡¡ AE;I..LJE' is n9t þ"s¡¡dupon a twenty-year master plan for
JWA. Rather, the ALUC assumes that JWA will continue to
operatl'i the present ¡jay Il'ivels until at least December 31,
2015, "The Corumissi9naS$umes that the Airport will
continue to operate in accor¡j¡;¡PCe with the JWA Master Plan
until at least 2003. The settlement agreement modifications
were ah¡;o approvedÞy the two citizens groups which are
signatories to th.e original 1985 Settlement Stipulation.
The$e modification$ incre"se the regulated Average Daily
Departure$ from 73 to 69, and the permitted number of
commercial pa$¡¡engl'ir lOading bridges from 14 to 18. This
activity level will continue through, or after, December 31,
2015. John Wayne Airport will be preparing a Master Plan
amendment to reflect these modifications to the $ettlement
agreement." AELUP Page 19, Section entitled Twenty-Year
Future.
The project is consistent with the long-range development
plans of JWA1 and supports development of the airport over
at least the next 20 years.
ii.
JWA does not have any known plans to expand JWA
within the next twenty-years.
JWA did not identify any interference with the present
or plannl'id operation of JWA that would result
because of this project.
a)
b)
c)
The ALUC did not provide any factual evidence that
this project is inconsistent with the present operation
of JWA.
(1 )
On January 15, 2004, the ALUC heid a public
meeting on this project. The staff's
recommendation was that the project is
consistent with the AELUP, .providing the
project complies fully with aU conditions
required by the FAA," and "provided that a
Notice of Airport in Vicinity is provided to all
future occupants as specified in JWA AELUP
Section 3.3.6." The staff report further stated,
"the project technically represents a compatible
land use in its scope and at its location, and
will be consistent with the Commission's JWA
AELUP."
(2)
At the January 15, 2004 hearing, contrary to
ALUC staff's recommendation, the ALUC voted
to approve this project as consistent with the
AELUP, with the added condition that the
project does not exceed 229' AMSL (Above
Mean Sea Level) in height. This condition
imposed by ALUC was not supported by any
findings of fact in the record. Based upon the
unsupported decision, the City of Santa Ana
requested the ALUC reconsider the January
15,2004 decision regarding this project.
1 The AELUP is not based upon <¡tw<ònly-Ye"r l1les\er pl"n; "S sUGt1th¡¡ GityQf ger\\¡¡ An" reGognizas it
may not be a l<ògally valid GomprehensiveJand use plan. Hqwever, sinœ \hi¡¡ pl,m w¡¡,¡¡ utili;;:ed by AI..UC
to determine this projeGt was "inGon¡¡istent," theCily .of Santa Ana will referenœ\he AEI..I..IP. By the use
of the AELUP for this limited purpose, the Cily of Santa Ana doe¡¡ not waive any ieg¡¡,l argument or
defense the City may raise regarding the appliœbilily of the AELUP to this or any fuwre projects.
Resoiutioo 2005,040
Page] of61
Resolution 2005-040
Page 8 of 61
As such, the ALUC did not identify any facts to
support the premise that this project would
result in any interference with the long-range
development plans of JWA at either the
January 15, 2004 or the March 18, 2004
meetings.
Although the project exceeds the FAR Part 77
obstruction standards, the FAA conducted an
Aeronautical.Study of the proposed project and found
the project poses no hazard to air navigation. (Exhibit
A.)
(1)
d)
(3)
On March 18, 2004, the ALUC reconsidered
the conditional approval of this project. Once
agein, the staff's recommendation was that the
project is consistent with the AELUP,
"providing the project complies fully with all
conditions required by the FAA," and "provided
that a Notice of Airport in Vicinity is provided to
all future occupants as specified in JWA
AELUP Section 3.3.6." "With all due respect
to the Commission and the action it took at its
J"nu",ry 15, 2004 meeting to amend the staff
recommendation of consistency, staff
continues to believe the appropriate
recommendation is a finding of consistency
with the appropriate FAA conditions relating to
lighting and subsequent notice and the state
mandated notice of airport in vicinity. . .."
(4)
On March 18, 2004, the ALUC voted to find the
project inconsistent with the AELUP. Not only
was this finding of inconsistency contrary to
staft's recommendation, it was also contrary to
ALUC's January 15, 2004 decision that this
project was conditionally consistent with the
AELUP. The ALUC's March 18,2004 decision
was not supported by any findings of facts
within the record.
(5)
The FAA Aeronauticai Study considered and
analyzed the impact on existing and proposed
arriv"l, departure, and en rOMte procedures for
aircrqftoperatingunder both visual flight rules
(VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR).
(2)
The FAA considered and analyzed the impact
on all existing and planned public-use airports,
military airports and aeronautical facilities.
The FAA considered and analyzed the
cumulative impact resulting from the proposed
structure when combined with the impact of
other existing or proposed structures.
(3)
e)
The ALUC "considers and recognizes the FAA
as the single 'Authority' for analyzing project
impact on airport or aeronautical operations, or
navigational-aid siting, including interference
with navigation-aids or published flight paths
and procedures." AELUP, § 2.1.3, Page 14.
A Tom Krause Aviation Consulting report entitled
Geneva Commons Aviation Impact Analysis,
Instrument Approach, Dep¡;¡rtureproceçlure and VRF
Analysis of John Wayne Airport (hereinafter "Krause
An¡;¡lysis") cçmph.¡ded that the prqject would not pose
an adverse impact on any InstrlJment Approach
Procedures, Departure Procedures or VFR
ProcedUres at JWA. (Attached heretq as Exhibit S.)
(4)
f)
Based on the FAA's Aeronautical Study, the Krause
Analysis, and the lack of factual evidence by JWA or
the ALUC to the contrary, the proposed project:
(1 )
(2)
Is not a hazard to air navigation.
Does not raise the ceiling or visibility minimums
at JWA for an existing or planned instrument
procedure.
Does not result in a loss of JWA's utility.
(3)
(4)
Does not conflict with the VFR air space use
for the JW A traffic pattern or for en route
navigation to and from JWA.
g)
Therefore, based upon the above, this project is
consistent with the safe operations, both existing and
proposed, of JWA. Since JWA has no adopted plans
for expansion of JWA within the next twenty years,
this project is consistent with the long-range
development of JWA.
Resolution 20QlhQ40
Page 9 of61
2.
8.
The land use planning and zoning actions for this project will not
interfere with the approaches to the airport runways.
I.
The FAA Aeronautical Study considered and analyzed the
impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en
route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual
flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) and
determined the project to be no hazard to air navigation.
il.
As stated in the Krause Analysis, "[a]lthough the proposed
Geneva Commons. buildings will exceed the standards of
FAR Part 77, the building site does not adversely impact any
Instrument Approach Procedures, Departure Procedures or
VFR procedures. at John Wayne Airport. The FAA
evaluation found that there would be no significant adverse
effect upon visual Flight rules (VFR) operations, or upon
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or upon the
operation of an air navigatiOn aid (NAVAID) if the building
were built to the héightrequested in the FAA Form 7460.1.
My study affirms the VFR and IFR operations determination
issued by the FAA."Krause Analysis Section 3.0.
iil.
Therefore, since this project is consistent with the long-range
development Of JWA!and this project will not interfere with
the approaches to the airport runways, this project will
provide for the orderly development of JWA.
How does this project promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669?
1.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 10 of61
Santa Ana's current Noise Element was adopted in 1982. The
AELUP was amended most recently in 2002. While there are
inconsistencies between the AELUP and Santa Ana's Noise
Element, the inconsistencies are irrelevant to this project. The
inconsistencies are as follows:
I.
While :;¡imilar, the graphic illustrating the noise contour for
JWA in the Noh.e. Element is not identical to the noise
contour in the AELUP. The noise element graphic
illustrating the noise contour for JWA was hand drawn rather
than prepared via the computer as it was in the AELUP.
In the noise element, the maximum acceptable noise level
for high density residential is 70 d8(A) CNEL, while the
AELUP identifies 65 dl3 (A) CNEL as "normally inconsistent."
il.
iiI.
The AELUP states in the description under "Normally
Inconsistent", "[a]1I residential units are inconsistent unless
iv.
are sound attenuated to ensure that the interior CNEL does
not exceed 45 dB, and that all units are indoor oriented so as
to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas."
AELUP, page 22.
The City of Santa Ana has attempted to bring the noise
element into compliance with the AELUP. On March 1,
2004, the City of Santa Ana began amending the Airport
Environs Element, the Noise Element and the Land Use
Element at the request of the ALUC.
v.
The City of Santa Ana was working diligently toward the
resolution of the inconsistencies between the AELUP and
the City's Airport Environ's Element, Land Use Element and
Noise Eiement. For each of these elements, a draft
containing the proposed amendments necessary to become
consistent with the AELUP was prepared. On May 13, 2004,
the City submitted the revised elements to the ALUC for its
review and determination of consistency. Unfortunately, on
August 6, 2004, the City of Santa Ana received
correspondence from Orange County Counsel, counsel for
the ALUC, raising a myriad of issues that, in the City's
opinion, were legally unfounded. On September 16, 2004,
the City sent correspondence to County Counsel addressing
each the issues he had raised. To date, the City has not
received a response to this correspondence. Due to these
issues raised by ALUC via their legal counsel, and the lack
of cooperation by ALUC, the City withdrew the application to
amend the Airport Environs Element, the Noise Element and
the Land Use Element and is awaiting the ALUC to identify
the legally necessary changes for Santa Ana's general plan
to be consistent with the AELUP.
vi.
Even though the City of Santa Ana has attempted to resolve
the differences in the general plan and the AELUP, each of
the above inconsistencies is irrelevant to this project for the
following reasons:
a)
This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A) CNEL
noise contour, identified as High Noise Impact.
b)
Additionally, this project is outside the AELUP's 60 dB
(A) CNEL noise contour, identified as Moderate Noise
Impact.
The AELUP requires sound attenuation to ensure that
interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB CNEL. AELUP
c)
Resolution 2005-040
Page 11 of61
2.
Resolution 2001;;-040
Page 12 ôl61
d)
page 22. This project will have an interior noise level
of not more than 42 dB (A) CNEL, which will exceed
the mitigation as required in the AELUP.
As such, this project is consistent with the noise
compatibility criteria in the AELUP.
The City's noise element policies assure conformance with the
state airport noise standards.
I.
The state airport noise standards identify "the acceptable
level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of
airports is hereby established/to be a community noise
equivalent level of 65 decibels." Title 21, California Code of
Regulations, Section 5012.
a)
This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A) CNEL
noise contOl.lf, identified as High Noise Impact.
b)
il.
Additionally, this projeçt i$ putside the AELUP's 60 dB
(A) CNEL. noise contour, identified as Moderate Noise
Impact.
The Galifprnia G(.ìde. pf Regulations permits residential
project$ within thl'i65dS (A) CNEL noise contour if:
a)
"An avigation easement for aircraft noise has been
acquired by the airpprt proprietor, or . . .
The residl'ince is a high rise apartment or
condominium having an interior CNEL of 45 dB or
le$$ in allhabit"þlerooms due to aircraft noise, and
an air circulation or air conditioning system as
appropriate." C"lifornia Code of Regulations Title 21,
Section 5014 (a)(1) and (3).
b)
iil.
Even though this project is not within the 65 CNEL noise
contour, the interior of the units will be mitigated to a level of
42 dB (A) CNe:L or le$$, which exceeds the State-
recommended interior noi$e $tandard. Prior to the issuance
of any Certificates of U$e and Occupancy, field-testing in
accordançl'i with Title 25 regulations shall be conducted to
verify complianc;e with the interior noise standard of 42 dB
(A) CNEL or less.
Additipnally, the çOntr¡¡¡ct "coustical consultant for JWA, Mr.
Vince Mestre Of Mestre-Greve Associates, te$tified at the
January 15, 2004 ALUC meeting that when all factor$ are
iv.
3.
considered, the noise level will be higher at the ground level
of the building rather than at the roof of the building. Since
noise at the base of the building will be perceived as noisier,
the fact that this project is a high-rise building is irrelevant to
any airport noise impacts.
v.
Therefore, there is no evidence of significant adverse noise
impacts as a result of this project and thi¡¡ project is in
conformance with the state airport noise standards.
The mitigation measures for this project will mitigate existing and
foreseeable airport noise problems.
I.
The applicant's noise expert, Synectecology, and Mr. Vince
Mestre, JWA's contract acou¡¡tical consultant, agreed that it
would be perceived a¡¡ noi¡¡ier on the ground than it will be at
thl'i roof of a 2~O' buildipgat this location.
Synectecology states in the noise study prepared for
Geneva Commons develQpment qateq August 14, 2003,
"The p[ojec;t$ite is lQcated approximately 1.5 miles
northwest of the John Wayne International Airport. The
project is located. tQ tiw \Nest of the established flight path
and is Þl'iyondthe airport's eO-deA CNEI... nQiseCQntour.
Implementation. of the proposed project would not expose
the new residents to exce$sive aircraft noise levels and no
mitigation measures are necessary."
il.
ill.
Additionally, any pO$sible impacts will be mitigated by the
following mitigation measures that have been proposed and
agreed to by the applicant.
a)
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
project proponent shall provide evidence to the City of
Santa Ana that a "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity"
(pursuant to 6usil1ess and Professions Code § 11010)
has been recorded on the deed for each residential
unit and shall remain so recorded so long as the
airport is in operation.
b)
The project, a.s a condition of the Conditional Use
Permit, will have interior noise attenuation to at least
42 dB (A) CNEL.
c)
Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and
Occupancy, field-testing in accordance with Title 25
regulations shall be conducted to verify compliance
Resolution 200$,040
Page 13 of61
C.
with the interior noise standard of 42 dB (A) CNEL or
less.
How will this project prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems?
1.
The following meaSures will be taken to assure that risks - both to
people¡¡¡nd property on the ground and to the occupants of aircraft
- associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum.
I.
ii.
ili.
ResolutiQn 2005-040
Page 14 of61
There are no inconsistencies. between the proposed land
use action and safety compatibility criteria in the AELUP.
ALUC's are to be guided by the information contained within
The Californi¡¡¡ Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(hereinafter Handþqok), published by the Division of
Aeronautics qf the DeP¡¡¡rtment of Transportation. The
Handbook provides that the ALUC can identify safety
compatibility zones.
a)
Thl'i only safetYcqmpatibility zone adopted by ALUC
is the Runway Protection Zone.
b)
Th~ ALUÇ diq nqt adopt any "Accident Potential
;2:qnl'iS for this.¡¡¡irportÞl'icause none could be justified
with the avaiiaÞ!1'i data:' AELUP Page 18.
According to the AELUP, there are no Accident
Potl'intial Zones/Runway Protection Zones within the
City of Santa Ana.
c)
d)
As such, the AELUP does not identify any safety
zones that would affect the. safety of either people or
prqperty on the ground or occupants of aircraft as a
result of this project.
This projectis cqnsistent with the AELUP Land Use policies.
a)
The AELUP identifies the General Land Use Policies
as folloWs: "Within the boundaries of the AELUP, any
I"nd use may be found to be Inconsistent with the
AELUP which;
(1 )
Places people so that they are affected
adversely by aircraft noise,
(I)
The AI.UC did not identify any noise
issues as a result of this project at either
(ii)
(Iii)
the January 15, 2004 or the March 18,
2004 meeting.
As discussed above, this project is not
within either the 65 dB (A) CNEL noise
contour or the 60 dB (A) CNEL noise
contour.
(iv)
The contract acoustical consultant for
JWA, Mr. Vince Mestre of Mestre-Greve
Associates, testified at the January 15,
2004 ALUC meeting that when all
factors are considered the noise level
will be higher at the ground levei of the
building rather than at the roof of the
building.
Synectecology states in the noise study
prepared for Geneva Commons
development dated August 14, 2003,
"The project site is located
approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the
John Wayne International Airport. The
project is located to the west of the
established flight path and is beyond the
airport's 60-dBA CNEL noise contour.
Implementation of the proposed project
would not expose the new residents to
excessive aircraft noise levels and no
mitigation measures are necessary."
(v)
Moreover, any possible noise issues will
be sufficiently mitigated by the following
mitigation measures such as:
.
The Notice of Airport in the
Vicinity" will be recorded on the
deed for each residential unit and
shall remain so recorded 50 long
as the airport is in operation.
The construction of the units will
exceed the State-recommended
4:) dB (A).CNEI. interior standard
by being conditiOned under the
Conditional Use Permit to have
.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 15 of61
Resolution 2005-040
Page 160f61
(2)
(3)
an interior noise of 42 dB (A)
CNEL.
Concentrates people in areas susceptible to
aircraft accidents,
(i)
ALUC has not adopted any "Accident
Potential Zones for this airport because
none could be justified with the available
data." AELUP Page 18.
Moreover, Appendix D of the AELUP
does not identify any Accident Potential
Zones/Runway Protection Zones within
the City of Santa Ana.
(Ii)
(iii)
Since there are no areas susceptible to
aircraft accidents within Santa Ana, this
project does not concentrate people in
areas susceptible to aircraft accidents.
Permits structures of excessive height in areas
which would affect adversely the continued
operation of the airport, or Permits activities or
facilities that would affect adversely
aeronautical operations." AELUP Section
3.2.1, page 20.
(Ii)
(i)
Moreover, as discussed above this
project will not adversely affect the
continued operation of the airport or
aeronautical operations.
(iii)
FAA conducted an Aeronautical Study
of the proposed project and determined
this project to be no hazard to air
navigation. As previously stated, the
ALUC considers the FAA to be the
"single 'Authority' for analyzing project
impact on airport or aeronautical
operations, or navigational-aid siting.
including interference with navigation-
aids or pUblished flight paths and
procedures." AELUP page 14.
The Krause Analysis confirmed the FAA
determination, and found this project will
2.
D.
(Iv)
not adversely affect any continued
operation of JWA.
The ALUC did not provide any evidence
that this project would affect the
operation of the airport or aeronautical
operations at either the January 15,
2004 or March 18, 2004 meetings.
Therefore, since this project will not
affect the operation of the airport or
aeronautical operations this project is
not of excessive height.
The proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk
considered to be a community norm.
(v)
I.
Neither the FAA nor the ALUC identified any flight hazards
that will be created as a result of this project.
"Off-airport accidents are rare" and "ii.1ircraft accidents in the
vicinity of airports are very infrequent occurrences and,
historically, very few people on the groundh¡¡¡vl;"\ been
serioUsly or fatally injured as a result of such accidents."
Handbook, Page 9-1.
il.
Iii.
As discussed above, the AELUP states Accident Potential
Zones could not be justified with the available data.
The FAA conducted an Aeronautical Study of the proposed
project and determined this project posed no hazard to air
navigation.
iv.
v.
As such, based on the above, all risks fall within a level of
acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
How does this project protect public health, safety, and welfare by
ensuring the orderly expansion of airport?
1.
As discussed above, the building will provide for the orderly
development of JWA (See Section I).
Moreover, the health, safety and welfare of the public is protected
because this building does not pose any safety or noise imp"cts.
Any possible impacts have been mitigated with the following
mitigation measure:
2.
ResolutiQn 2005-040
Page 11 of 61
I.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project
proponent shall provide evidence to the City of Sante Ana
that a "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" has been recorded on
the deed for each residential unit and shall remain so
recorded so long as the airport is in operation.
The construction of the units will exceed the State-
recommended 45 dB (A) CNEL interior standard by being
conditioned under the Conditional Use Permit to have an
interior noise of 42 dB (A) CNEL.
il.
E.
How does this project minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses?
1.
The existing noise and safety hazards are. not excessive, and the
actions taken by the City of Santa Ana "prevent the creation of new
noise and safety problems."
I.
This area is already devoted to high-rise office towers. This
project does not create any new noise and safety problems.
a)
Noise
(1 )
This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A)
CNEL noise contour, identified as High Noise
Impact.
Additionally, this project is outside the AELUP's
60 dB (A) CNEL noise contour, identified as
Moderate Noise Impact.
(2)
(3)
Moreover, the above following mitigation
measures eliminate the creation of new noise
problems:
(I)
The Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" will
be recorded on the deed for each
residential unit and shall remain so
recorded so long as the airport is in
operation.
(ii)
The construction of the units will exceed
the State-recommended 45 dB (A)
CNEL interior standard by being
conditioned under the Conditional Use
Permit to have an interior noise of 42 dB
(A) CNEL.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 18 of61
b)
Safety
(1)
As previously discussed, both the FAA and the
Krause Analysis have determined this building
to not be a hazard to air navigation.
ALUC has not identified any safety concerns
that will arise as a result of this project.
Section 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitig"tion
monitoring program, Environmental Review No. 2004-215, prep..red with respect to this
Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence
presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CECA Guidelines, a
mitigation negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program adequately
addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. on the basis of this
review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which itC<iln be fairly argued
that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City
Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation
monitoring program and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed
with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law.
(2)
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") § 735.5(c)(1), the City
Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project
exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding
buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and
Title XIV, CCR § 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not
required in conjunction with this project.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public
hearing hereby approves:
A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as conditioned in Exhibit "C"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as conditioned in Exhibit "D"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned in Exhibit "E" attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as conditioned in Exhibit "F"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The City Council of the City Qf Sal1ta Ana also finds that the project is consistent
with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Cod.e Section 21670 et.
seq.
B.
C.
D.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 19 0161
These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid
hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated
April 4, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all
of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. The City Council has read and considered Resolution No. CRA
2005~OO1 of the City of Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency, which is
incorporated herein by this reference. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33445,
the City Cpl.Incil hereby con$ents to the construction .and installgtion project described in
this Resolution and thEJ uSe of AgEJncy prqject I>pecific tax increment, in an amqunt not
to exceed $5 million to pay for. $aid project. The City Council. authOrizEJs thl'i City
Manager anØ Clerk to. eXl'içute the. COopl'irative Agreement for Offsite Improvements
upon approval, if any, of the proposed Nexus project. The City Council finds that:
A.
Thl'i Community Redevelopml'ipt Agency of the City of Santa Ana
(herein"fter referred t9 as thI'J"Agençy") is engaged in activities necessary
to execute. and implement the . Redevelopment Plan for the South Main
Redevelopment Project Area (the Redevelopment Plan").
B.
In order to irpplernl'il1t the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has agreed,
subject to the approval of the City Council, to contingently approve a
Cooperative Agreement for Offsite Improvements between itself, the City
of S"nta Al1a, Sandpointe Neighþprhood ASsocigtion, Inc., 9 California,
non-profit Public Þenefit anq feqeral5Q1 (c)(3) cOrpOrgtiol1 ("$gnqpoil1te"),
thl'i Nexl.lS DevelPPrnent Cprpo(gtion/Cl'intrgl Division,. .Inc. 9 C;glifomig
corporgtion ¡;¡nd The Qranq Plan 2, LLC;, a Califomia Lill1iteq Liability
Compgny (collectively referred to. herl'iin as "Nexu::;"), andCog::;tgl Rim
Prppertil'iS, Inc.. a California corporation ("Geneva Commons") (hereafter
"the Agreement").
C.
The Agreement contains all of the provisions, terms, conditions and
obligations required by the state and local laws.
D.
The Agreement provides, that if the Nexus and Geneva Commons
projects receive all discretionary approvals from the City Council, that the
Agency will commit up to $5 million in project specific tax increment to
construct underground utilitiel> on. portions of Main Street, MacArthur
Boulevard, and Sunflower Avl'inue (hl'ireinafter "the undergrounding
project"). If no event, however, will the Agency be obliged to spend more
than the $5 million in undergrounding on these three street segments.
E.
Portions of the undergroundingprojectare not. within a Project Area, but
the existing above.ground utility IIpl'is are visible from the South Main
Project Area gnd constitute a blighted condition. The City Coyncil further
finds th¡;¡t the undergrpundipg projecfis pf þenefitto the project area
and/or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located.
Resolutíon2005-Q40
Page 20 òf 61
F.
The City Council further finds that no other reasonable means of financing
the undergrounding project are available to the community. The City has
adopted thirty-six undergrounding districts and Rule 20A funds available to
the City for the foreseeable future have been cpmmitted to other
undergrounding projects of higher priority. The undergfounding project
would not involve a major street project, as is typical of approved City
undergrounding districts, and a portion of the affected street segments
contain high enefgy 66 KV lines that are more expensive to underground
than utility lines on other City arterials.
G.
Nothing herein in intended, nor shall it be interpreted. as a pre-commitment
or approval of the proposed entitlements for the proposed Nexus project in
South MacArthur Place, in that the Council's findings and approval are made
contingently.
Section 6. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No.
NS-2681 becomes effective. If s.aid ordinance is for any reCl$on held to be invalid Of
unconstitutional by the decii;!ionof anycourtof.comp¡;¡tent jurisdlctiop, or otherwi¡¡¡e do not
go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further
force and effect.
Section 7. This decision rendefed by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 10134.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the
Council's decision and these findings.
ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2005
Resolution 2005-040
Page 21 of 61
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:. ,~,~ (m:-
Kylee . Otto
Assistallht City Attorney
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Bist, Bustamante. Christy. Garcia, . Pulido. Solorio
(6)
NOES:
Councilmembers:
None (0)
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers: Alvarez (1 )
NOT PRESENT: Council members: None (0)
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-040 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on Aoril 4. 2005.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution 2005-040
Page 22 of 61
1!'e.de.r"lAvi"tipnJ\.dministration J\.£¡;¡;ona1.!tica). St1.!dy No.
;6s~~r 9:~&;:i~p~;~~onal OffiRECEIVE~~i~;A~f~4;7~~~$
Los Angelel;i, CA 90009-2007 2003-AWP-2859-0E
SEP 2 9 2003
Issued Date: 9/23/2003
CRP
SANTA ANA
FRANCO MOLA
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES
139 EAST ALTON AVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92707
... DB'rI!RMINATIONOF NO IIAZARD TO AI!< NAVIGATION U
The Fede;r"l Aviation Mmipistration has completed an aeronituticitl stu(jy UXlder
the provisipps of (9 v.s.c., section 44718 apd, if applicable, Title 14 of the
Code of. Fe>'!era). ReS\\:).ation.., part 77, concerning:
Structure
Location:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Height..:
Type:
J3uilding
SANTA ANA, CA
33-42-2 NAD 83
117-51-51
¡¡50 feet above
287 feet above
ground level (AGL)
mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the ¡¡tructure wou:).>'! have PO ¡¡1.!bs1::an1::ial
adverse effect On the safe.an<;i efficient uti).izittionoftbe pavigable air¡¡pace
by aircraft or. .On tJ:¡e operation of air J:lavigittion facilities. Therefore,
purSuaPtt<:> the ituthoritydelegated to me, it is her<;!pydet<;!rmined t.bitt the
..trvcture would pot be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
copdition(s) is (are) met:
A.. a copdition to thi..petermiAatior., t::'" stT:Uctur<;! should be ma.rked and/or
lightedip aCqordance witJ:¡);'AA J),dvisc.:y Circ ~ ..,- 70/7460-1 70/74¡¡OdK,
Obst:t:Uction Marking and Li;¡l.lting, red lights - Ci.aprers 4,5(Red),u;¡.
It -1.sreq!.lired th"t the «nc¡o....<;i FAA Form 7460-2, Notic.. of Ac::tual Construc::tion
orJ\.lteratioP, be completed and returned to thi.. office any time the project is
abandoned. or:
- At ¡ea.st 10 <;ia.Y" prior to start of constrvctIon
(74,<;0-2, Part :1')
_X-- Within 5 days after the con..truction reaches its gre"te..t height
(7460-2, Part II)
As a result pf tJ:¡is "tructure b<;!ing critical to flight safetY, it is required
th"t<t4" F;äAÞe 1ç<;!pt app"aise<:ì.a.. to the status of the project. Failure to
re¡¡pond to periodic FAA inq!.liries could invalidate this determination.
See attitchment for a<:ìditiona¡condition(s) or informatiOn.
The struCture consi<:ìere<:ì 1Jnder this study lies in
occup~ntsmaybe subjecteQ ~o noise from aircraft
airport.
This determination expires on 3/23/2005 unless:
pro~imity to an airport and
operating to and from the
(a)
extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 23 of 61
(b)
the construction is subject to the licensing authority of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an
application for a construction permit has been filed, as
required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this
determination. In such case, the determination expires on
the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of
construction¡ or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTrVE PEtUOD OF .'rHIS DETERIofINJ\.TION
MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO 'rHIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYSpR:¡:OR TOT! ¡¡;
EXPIRATION DATE.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition
on or before 10/23/2003. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must
contain a fuU.st<!temerit of<thebasistIporiwhich.it is made and be submitted in
triplicate to the ~anager, Airspace Branch, Federal~yiationAdministration,
Wa.shington, D.C. :aOS¡l1.
This determination becomes final on 11/2/2003 unless a petition
In which case, this determination will not become f:í.nalpenqing
the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant
is timely filed.
disposition of
of...ap,y..;-eview.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which'
includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes
in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this
determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to
heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice
to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as craneß,
derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure.
However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heightß as indicated aPove.
Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires
separate notice to the FAA.
This determinationconcernß the effect of this structure on the sa,fe a,nd
efficient useofnavigable;;¡.irlèpace by ai.rc¡:-;;¡.ftiUld doesp-ot,relieYethe spç¡:¡sor
of çompliance responsibiliti~s relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of
anY ¡;'~deJ;"a.J., State,. oJ;" loqalgovernment bOdy.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and
proposed arrival, departure, a,nd en route procedureß for aircraft operatip.g
under both visual flight ruleß a,nd inst;rumentflight ruleß;theimpa.qton<all
existing a,nd planned public-use airports, military airportsa,nd a,eroriautical
fagilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when
combined wi tl1. the :í.!1IPact Of other exißt:í."gorproposed structureß. The study
disclosed that the described structure would have no sUbßtantial adverse effect
on air navigation.
An acqount of the Ièt1.lqYfindings, «eronautical oþjeqtiop-s received
during the study (if anY), and the basis for the FAA'ß decision in
can be found on the following page(s).
A copy of this determination will be fo~arded to the Feder«l Communicationlè
Commission if the stfuctureis subject to their licensing authority.
by the FAA
this ma.tter
Resolution 2005-040
Page 24 of 61
Page 2
¡f we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (310}725-ó559.
On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to
Aeron ~ 1 Stu y Number 2003-AWP-2870-0E
L
(DNH) 215023
Attacbm"mt (s)
Additional Information
P~c;:rp. 1
Resolution 2005-040
Page 25 of61
Additional ¡¡:¡,formatio¡:¡, for ASN 2003-AWP-2870-0E
The p:¡:-oposed building of 250 foot Above.Groundr.eveJ. (AG¡:,f, 287 foot: Above Mean
Sea Level (AMSL) located approximately 6,886 feet northwest of ~ohn WaYne
Ab:port Runway 19R, exceeds Federal Aviation Regulat;i.otl, O¡'J.\R) Part 77, Subp!!rt
C, a.sfollows: .
77.23(a) (2) exceeds by 31, a height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is
higher exceeding 200 feet within 3 miles of the airport.
77.23(a) (5) exceeds by 81, a height exceeding
above the airport field elevation (56ft AMSL)
defined by FAR 77.25(a) (2).
a horizontal surface of 150 feet
within a radius of 10,000 feet, as
This proposal was not circularized because it is in an area of structures of
similar height.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 26 of 61
P;::¡c;rP. 4
Resolution 2005-040
Page 27 of 61
Tabl.
2,0
~........~...............................................~Ei
Resolution 2005-040
Page 28 of 61
2
1.0 Generallnformatton
1.1 Introduction
The Instrument an¡¡¡lysls Is based, in part, on
standards for Instrument p
of current United States
97 of the Federal Aviation
information was obtained from i
ne Intemational Airport Obstruction Chart (OC)
the 2001 OC $Urvay.
to use ¡¡¡v¡¡¡liable obstacle data and currant
a
¡¡¡r
r¡¡¡$Uitli> present
oonstralntli> that
in this study,
1.2 Background and Terminology
The ability to conduct takeoffs and landings during periods of redl.lClild visibility or
Instrument flight rules
an
i ,000 feet above ground or the
Part 91 of the Federal AvIation Regulations (FAR) states that if ala
instrument letdown to a
lAP)
is
airport. An aircraft cannot land when
lower than the minimum specif!ed In the SlAP.
As part
promote the safe and efficient use of aimpaœ, the FAA is
for establishing and approving terminal Instrument procedures at civil
3
Resolution 2005-040
Page 29 of 61
airports. The FAA Orders referenced above contain criteria utílb!:ed by FAA to
formulate, review, approve and publish instrument approach and departure proœdures
for airports and runways, Thœe procedures are developed to ensure that aircreft are
provided œfe clearance over man-made or natural obstaolas when flying during IFR
weather oondltions, Addltiona! obstacte clearance is built into instru!Tlent
that are developed for airports loceted In and nœr mountains or other
terrain.
The proceduras utilized by FAA for
(D),
The FAA through their regulatory proœdurœ has already detarmlned that fIEIIther the
Instrumant approach or departure procedures are Impacted by the proposed Geneva
Commons projects.
This independant G$nava Commons analysis prœented herein Is based on the existing
FAA r POTENTIAL iMPACT on Instrument
19R1L were
rturEl Procedurœ published Wayne Airport,
used is the se!Tle as the FAA if¡ supposed to use in Its
determinations.
1,3 Approach Procedures
An instrument approach procedure cen be classified as precision or non-precision, A
. In addition to
approach
for vertical (descent) information. Barometric altimeter settings involve readings of
elevation above Mean Sea Lavel (MSL).
1,3,1 Preçlll>ion Approach Procedures
The term
precision
refeæ to the d&ctliiion point on a
approach to
fora
the landing
ulres that an instrument
(I)
The aircraft is In a position to make a normal approach to the runway; and,
Resolution 2005-040
Page 30 of 61
4
(Ii)
for that runway, or
end of the runway,
or other markings
visible to the pUot
on decillion DAtDH and the horizontal
statute miles or in
sta~ in feet, when RVR equipment ¡s;
) of
the and a standard
of not less; than 1 SOO feet
1.:U
Non.prec.'on Approach Procedures
pproaches are œtfigorized as str.¡lght.in or circtlng.
is a manwver initiatoo by the pilot to align the aircreft with a runway
stralght.in landing frcm an instrument is not pl)S$ibl$ or is not
minimums are a staternent of MDA and villibilìty requiroo for the
established MDA or DH is not author!::::oo
position from which a nonmal approach to
intended landing can be made and adequate vi$ual referenœ to required
visual cues Is rnaintalned.
1.3.3
Departure Procedures
Standard
Part 91.
nautical mile,
feet above'
takeoff minlmurns and d~rture procedures are
is besoo on the aircraft ciimblng
the runway lilt least 35 feet AGI..,
before turning unleS$ otherwise specified in the procooure.
The anaiysis is based on standards contained in FAA Order
S26Q.3B, The d~rture criteria are prediœtad on nonmal aircraft
operetions, te., all-englnes running.
5
Resolution 2005-040
Page 31 of 61
1.3,4
Propoa¡;ed instrument Approaches
Standards
to John Wayne
2.0 Analysis
, Missed Approach, and
a Commons proposed
~ngtrum,nt A.DProach""'proœd.!.!.(U
Proœduras ware
and loœtion:
!LS Rwy 19L; LOC (Back Course) Rwy 1L; LDA Rwy 19R; RNAV (GPS) Rwy 1L; RNAV
(GPS) Rwy 19R; NDS Rwy 1L; NDB Rwy 19R.
SNA Departure Procedures
ANA.HEIM THREE D
URE; Published I
CHANNEL ONE
Local VFR procedures
2.2 Precision Approach (ill R19l)
Geneva the ILS
Threl!!hoid and
Add more than
sm. Commons ase
hazard to Air Navigation, (Plaase soo attachment C),
2.3 Non-Precision Approsches
Geneva Commons will not adversely impact any of the non
either Runways 01 Lor 19R at the maximum buìl
any fu
Resolution 2005-040
Page 32 of 61
(}
The RNAV proC$dure to R19R could be impacted if the
the building
20 foot
is the l"rniIJ{imum altitude
approach without requIring a change to the
course missed approach PfQC$dure will not be Impaoted
to
missed
at an altitude of 480'
of 200' par
apPfQach point,
2,3:1
Circting Procedures
WÍth 1 WiMe mile vIsibility for
C; and 2 miles for Category D aircraft.
In$trument Approach
found on the RNAV (GPS)
the
categories A 8. B;
protected cIrcling araa to d*rmine the
rn altitude for clrcUng rsma!ns at
at an elevation of 281' feet MSL and 6876' (1,3 13M)
. 321' MSL as
are higher and control for the
7
Resolution 2005-040
Page 33 of 61
2.4 i:kIparture Procedures
Instrument o.pal1urM
The current FAA published Departure Procedure for John
requires all
turn
ençed at an altitlJde well
not impœing any impact on
departing aircreft.
The Anaheim Threa Departure requires a tum to 330 degrees afœr takeoff from R01 L.
Howevef, the aircraft is not supposed to commence a tum prior to reaching 400 feet
above field elevation. is 56 feat aircraft should not
area, This is another reason that FAA has provid
impact
The CHANNEL ONE, DUUKE ONE and MUSEL SIX
from R19R and therefore are not impacted by the proposed
all depart to the South
ildlngs.
2.5 Circling vs VFR Considerations
A circling approach to either R01 L or R19R is pœsible with visibiUtiM as low as 1
statute mile and ceilings M low as 600' AGL above the airport. These circling
minlmurns are VFR rElq!.lÌrementa of 1000' AGL aAd 3 mllas
visibility. The put ttIe aircraft closer
in poor weather And yet, hM
detenmined that obstruction clearance requirements are safe and that the
minimums at John Wayne likewise are safe. My evaluation affirms the FAA
g¡¡¡
The proposed Geneva Commons building site is located 6,876 feet (1,3 £1m) north ofthe
end of R19R. loœted on the final approach nor in
clœe proximo way 19R. The impacts of panetratlons
are minor compared to other buildings within the airport area.
The minimum R19R VFR traffic pattem altitudes are: 1054 MSL for small aircraft, 1554
MSL for turbine aircraft over 12,500#, (Source: Aimav.com). The minimum R19L VFR
traffIC pattem altitudM are: Small Single engine aircraft: 854'
1054' MSL, Turbine aircreft: 1554' MSL (Source, John Wayne Airport Pilot
Guide).
The proposed building is loceted 6876' from R19R at an alevation of 281' MSL. Aircraft
on a right downwind to R19R already have a 323' MSL buiJding and 321' MSL b
in its downwind andfor baae tum area (01319 a.323ßnd 7 ~321).
traffic from the NorthfNorthwest will be following the 405 freaway for their base to the
Resolution 2005-040
Page 34 of 61
8
<}
ResolutioR2005,040
Page 35 of 61
ORDER 8260.3B -
PROCEDURES (TERPS)
1ST A TES STANDARD FOR TERMINAL INSTRUMENT
FAA No. 405
SURVEYS and related products
FAA Order 7400.2E
FOR HANDLING AIRSPACE MA TIERS
PART IS7 - NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION,
AND DEACTIVATION OF AIRPORTS
PART 77 OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE
FAA FORMS 8260 - 3;
AT SANTA ANA/JOHN
~- S, 8260 -- 9 FOR ILS, LDA AND RNA V TO RUNWAY 19R
AIRPORT
OF
AC: lSOIS190-4A: A MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE TO
AROUND AIRPORTS
FAA ADVISORY
AC: 7017460-21
7460-1
SUBMITTED TO FAA FOR THE TWO BtnLDING
2002 AIRPORT
- JOHN WA!'NE AIRPORT; OC 377
FEDERAL AVIATION
- Official Guide to Basic
INFORMATION MANUAL
Information and ATC Procedures
Resolution 2005-040
Page 36 of 61
JO
At/4chment (B)
THOMAS E. KRAUSE
is a spedalist in instrument Flight Procedures
and obstacle evaluati<::>ns. His
with FAA with 17 year¡¡ in
DeveJoproe.nt including
nolæ abstement
airports, Nevada;
El TotO MCAS; original
for Federal Ex~ of a
compliance
fadli1;y perfo~e.
ationill .Aiœpa.ce sy¡¡tem and to evaluate
Relevant Project Experl¡mce
Flight OperatiolJl! CI'jW for Flight wpection. Frankfurt,
activities for the Frankfurt
Fi~ Office. Provided Flight wpectioo
coordination <md bri~s with the Directox"s of Avistioo
of the vllri<::>ns count4es, Conducted Pilot Flight Check!¡ to
_me compliance axi.d abili1;y.
Worked 00 the Head¡;¡uarten ¡¡t¡¡ff at OkJ¡¡homa City, OK.
Conducted FAA pilotllight clteck!¡, and conducted office
evaluati<::>ns to determine ¡:ompJJ.¡¡nce with FAA
Head¡;¡uarters poliq <m.d objectives. Perfo.rJ;lli!;d
Contracting Officer¡¡ j:epresentalive duties for Flight
Inspection and wtrqmen.i: Flight Procedures trai:ning.
Devaioped Flight Procedure and Flight Inspectioo !rai:ning
co~ for all flek! ~0nrœ1.
Performed emoute ¥ Termi:nal instrument Approach
Procedmes clteck!¡ thl:ooghout the U:!Ût<!d States including
Hawaii and A!a!lka,
The Oklahoma a¡¡¡¡¡~t was a Washington, D.C. ]eve!
assig:nment which involved frequent interface with other
Educa.tion
WiscO!:1l!in State Univer!!i1;y,
1965 - 1%9
Univer¡¡i1;y of Northem
Calliomia Law School,
1992-1995; Juria Doctor
Degree - Mem1:!er of
aili£omia State Biir #189100
Training
USAF Pilot Training
Reese MD, Lubbock, TX,
1970-1971
Air Traffic Controller
Training, Ok!tl1fqma City,
OK.
1977
Airspace Sy¡¡temJi;
Inspection Pilot Training
ani! Flight l'roordurøs
Training, 1980
Ardic Surei"llal Training to
iktermine: fMsfí1ilit¡¡ of
FAA Flight Crews
i~ingtMiT s4frty ûweL
Airline Transport Pí10t -
# J071248
Certified FAA Fli¡:¡ht
inspection Pilot
CaIifurnia State .Bar
#1891Ofi .
Resolution 2005-040
Page 37 of 61
el and
and n1arü1lger-
tìon for 1ÚIle
states.
is
in
the Northwest Mountain Region -
clients.
He still knows and coordinates
nel that are still in the FAA.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 38 of61
12
Resolution 2005-040
Page 39 of('\1
Attachment (D)
FAA ORDER 8260.19@AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION EVAlUATION Discussion
GENERAL
14 CFR Part 77 the Administrator be notified prior to
alteration of might present
Proposed Construction or Alteration, is the medium for
or alteration.
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCESSING OF FAA FORM 1460.1
The regional A TO (Air
1 in accordance with 1
,
pmœdure, Is provitlsd to Air Traffic. VN~
racon
ices. Additionally, the ,
shall serve as the fooal point for assessing
impact assessrnents should be made by the Flight
and FSD.1
AU
VFR operational
Proceduras Office
TERMINAl AREA IFR OPERATIONS
AVN.100 shall assess the effect upon area IFR operations to include
approach/departure p~uras, holding pattams,
and STARS. The study should assess tha effect upon any segment of an existing or
proposed instrument approach/departure procedure and any rastrictions.
If the proPOliled construction or aiteration will hava an adverse affect On VFR or IFR
aircra' , or minimum IFR flight altitudes, A VN.1
Stendards evaluations se effects.
responsible for making the final determination of whether adverse impacts are
substantial or minimal.
NOTE REGARDING FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT AND OE ANAlYSIS
Flight
do not go to check out a building after it is built. Flight
nitiai and periooic in¡:¡pections of all instrument procedure$ in
aid. Flight Inspection
procedures prior to the procedures
conjunotion
check$ out new and revised instrument
¡ AU :ref"MCß$ !Ire made !<! se1""ted portions of FAA Order 8261U 9C that dìr""t cerWn .pecíñc actions or the
ditferent entities involved in the OB Evaluation Process.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 40 of 61
14
obstructions and to varify flyability along with the
fe.
15
Resolution 2005-040
Page 41 0161
Resolution 2005-040
Page 42 of 61
Instrument Approach, Departure and VFR ArlaiYí\lÌ$
SNA Airport
GENEVA COMMONS
Table of Contents
~ ... ... " ... " ... " . . ... ... " . " " " " ... " . ... .. " " ".." ... .. " .. .... " " ... .. " " ... .. ".
"""'",,.. """".. ........ ..... .". ......"...".".........
III. Loœl~í\lr Sack Couree R011... ...... . ..... -.... . .............-
" "" " " " " " " . . " " . " . . " " . . " . . " " " " . . " . " .:~ " " .. " " "" "." ".. ." ..,.:3
...... ..... ...,..... ..-..4
S. Topographic Chart with IUS obí\ltacie clearance í\lurfaCfìí\l . . . . . . . . . . . .5
TERPS iUS Obstaele Ckiarance Surface Depiction. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resolutiqn 2005-040
Page 43 Of 61
t GENERAL DISCUSSION
This addendum is to expand on the earlier report submitted on November 10, 2004 showing that
the Geneva Commons Building project will not adverealy effect the instrument pfOCedurss at SNA.
it is to address some concerns that have been expressed about buildings in the location of th$
Geneva Commons project.
Part 11 surfaces are advisory in nature and provide the requirements for submission of NotJcea of
Proposed Construction or Alteretion, Form 7460.1. if the object exœeds a height or surface
defined in Subpsrt C of FAR Part 77, it would be an obstruction and would of an
aeronautical study by the FAA to determine its effect on navigable airspace. Is
concluded to have a substantial edverse effect upon the safe and efficient utilization of such
airspace, it would be determined to be a ha+ard to air navigation.
for Terminal instrument
surfaces are regulatory.
adverealy I
procedure if such object were a!lowed to be built depending on the amount of penetration and any
mitigating factors.
In the preaent cese, thera is neither any impact to any of the Instrument procedures at John Wayne
Airport from the Geneva Commons building site nor does the building penetrate any of the
regulatory TERPS obstacle clearance surfaces.
In the Obstacle Analysis and Determination of No Hazard1 of the Geneva Commons site, the FAA
determined that the building would not constitute a substential adverea effect Upon the safe and
efficient utilization of such airspace. Our independent analysis concluded the same.
As pslt of the FAAs aeronautical determination an analysis is mede as to any impsct to Instrument
. The for this analysis is that the United Statea Standard
rea urfaces is more reatrlctive than Part 77, and TERPS
uld
II, IlS ANALYSIS
There appears to be some concern from the ALCU staff on potential irnpacts of the Geneva
building on the ¡LS to Runway 19R at John Wayne Airport. As pointed out in the above discussion,
and reedily viewable in diagrams A and 6, the proposed building site is located well outside the ¡LS
TERPS surfacas. The proposed Geneva Commons building sits approximately 1300 feat outside
the nearest edge of the ILS trapezoid.
Prsclsion (11..8) Final Approach obstruction clearance surfaces are as depicted in Diagram 6. The
"Y., "X" and 'W" obstacte clearance surface (OCS) dimensions are as specified in diagram 6.
any additional formulae utilized but this page provides the basics, The 'W" OCS is an
plane at SNA at iii 1:34 slops beginning 200' from the landing threshold point (I.. TP) and
e)(Íeoding along the approach course centerline to the final approach fix.
The "X" obstecle surfaoe begins at the height of the 'W" surfaca and rieas at a slopa of 1 :4
perp&ndicular to the final approach course.
, 2003 - A1\\I!II>ol~-2~ 912312003
Page 44 of 61
2
The .Y" obstacle
perpendicular
b$gins at the height of the .X' surface and rises at a slope of 1:7
final approach coul"ße.
Diagram A SOOWli! the protected area overlying an aerial image of John Wayne Airport.
other object¡¡ would be raliltrlcted to the
the nearest point on the
his
e
m. LOCALIZER 8ACK COURSE RUNWAY 011..
ROiL offsl"ß the lowest instrument approach
procedura is "Climb to 800, then climbing
the SNA RunWli!Y OiL BC localizer p~ure is loϓed
building is 3.44
procedure is 480' AMSL.
IV. Conclu.aon
elevation of 281' AMSL will not
Z 'I'he h\Ii¡ht (Dy) ~ &i"bt or Rise or Riæ or
~W' Sfc "j{" Sic "'\'" Sf",
Dy~~
$
~~di~q~'iu~fUlmthe L1'P; j)j¡;,'"' í1:¡&;~uJard1~ i_nf~ bet::øen wum'oenw:Hueand-"x" ~~~O5~O40
!)Q __d,""""'","""bo__"""m;mund""""'lrucfiofim'!w Y",w11we. Page450f61
:3
Resolutíon2005-040
Page 46 of 61
4
5
Resolution 2005'04Q
Page 47 of!i!1
Resolution 2005-040
Page 48 ~J1
,
,
'-~
1'''1)''
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 is approved subject to compliance, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with 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. In addition, it shall meet the
following conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising
the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the conditional use permit approval.
Conditions of Approval
A.
Planning Division
1.
All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review
approval of DP No. 02-36.
2.
Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3.
The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential buildings must
cons.istof a sandstone material subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
4.
A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot have bedrooms and
bathrooms back to an adjacent unit where possible.
5.
A storage plan must besubmitte¡: to the Planning Division for approval.
The plan shall indicate the location and square footage of storage space
for each unit, with a minimum of 128 cubic square feet devoted to each
unit.
6.
A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls
will function must be submitted prior to building plan check. Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that restrict truck delivery hours to
non-peak periods shall be submitted prior to building plan check.
Exhibit "C"
Page 1 of 9
Resolution 2005-040
Page 49 of 61
8.
9.
7.
A Perforated Metal Screen Sign Program addressing signage on the south
elevation of the parking structure must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval prior tosubmittál inter building plan check... The
Perforated Metal Screen sign program shall inclUde dètails ofthesignage
(text, rnaterials)on the parking structure asweU as a maintenance plan
delineating the long-term repair and replacement of any graphic.
The project shaU incorporate on-site professional property management
for both the residential and commercial components.
Primary balconies for each unit shall maintain a minimum dimension of not
less than six feet in any direction.
10.
A fireplace shall be provided within each common area lobby for the
project.
11.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided for the
project. At a minimum, the CC&R's shall include provisions pertaining to
owner occupancy, restrictions on home based businesses, and the
prohibition of storage on balconies.
12.
A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for a specific
location(s) shaUbe submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. AU public art approved by the Planning Commission shall be
completely installed prior to the issuance of a certifiêate of occupancy for
the project.
A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of any building permits. In addition to thelandsc<1ping palette,
the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts
and outdoor furniture for the retail area and private podium.
13.
14.
The following items must be included as interior amenities within each unit
and the common areas: Concierge services for the residents, granite
counter tops, hardwood flooring, General Electric Monogram appliances or
equivalent,tiledbathroom and showerwalh>, individual laundry hook-ups,
electricfiréþlaèes, high-end furnituré and equipment within the resident
lounge and fitness center. The exact specifications for these items are
subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager.
15.
The following items must be included as exterior amenities for the
development: Enhanced pavinQon the walkways and central courtyard,
palm trees along First American Way, an outdoor fireplace and barbeque
on the amenity deck, at least one water feature on the amenity deck. The
exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval
of the Planning Manager.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 50 of61
Exhibit "C"
Page 2 of 9
16.
A minimum of 7,000 square feet of private storage space shall be provided
within the parKing deck. The $torage spac.e sh"lIbl'idivided among all
homeowners and ¡¡hall be provided at no cost to the residents.
17.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, complete a noise analysis which
identifies measures. that pro\iide.additionalnoise attenuation of at least 3
db below the 45 CNEL required for the project.
18.
Cast iron drain pipes shall be provided for the project.
19.
Smart wiring, such as cable television and high-speed cable for computers,
shall be provided for each unit and within the project's common areas.
Mitiaation Measures
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering with complete coverage shall occur
at least twice daily, once in the late morning and once after work is done
for the day.
All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period of high
winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during
Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes.
Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of each
day of construction.
All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be
minimized at all times.
Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be used for
onsite and offsite construction activities.
In the event unknown cultural resources are encountered during
construction operations, all construction activity within the immediate
vicinity of the discovery shall halt and the City's Environmental
Coordinator shall be contacted for appropriate action.
Exhibit "C"
Page 3 of 9
Resolution 2005.040
Page 51 of 61
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Any material collected shall be donated to a local institution, which has the
prop~rfacilities forcuration, display and use. bYinter~sted parties. The
discovery shall be described in a report, which receives sufficient
distribution tóinsÙre its availability to futureresaårchers.
Prior to the iSSlJance ora grading permit, the>applicant shall submit for
review and approval asurfacedrairiage/gradingplän/erosion control plan,
prepared by registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of
flow to adjacent streets. The plan .is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the
street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
All design recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation
prepared by TEL.A., April 2003 shall be incorporated into design plans
and implemented during construction.
Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface structures and debris
shalFbaremó'led and disposed off-site at a legal dumpsite. Any existing
utility lines, or other subsurface structures, which are not to be utilized
should be removed, destroyed, or abandoned in compliance with current
governmental regulations and concurrence from T.E.L.A.
Subsequent to clean up operations and prior to initial grading, a
reasonable search should be made for subsurface obstructions and/or
possible loose fill or detrimental soil types. This search should be
conducted bY the contractor, with advice from and under the observation
of a representative of T.E. LA
Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the building area, the
site should be prepared in accordance With the recommendations
presented in the Site Preparation Section of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report prepared by TEL.A. in April of 2003. Fill should be
spread in 6 to 8 inch lifts and should be moisture conditioned and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site
Preparation section. All undócumentedfillordisturbed soUs within the
building areas shoUld be removed and compacted under observation and
testing of a representative of T EL.A.
The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be observed and
approved by a representative of TELA for conformance with the intent
of the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and prior to
any further processing or fill placement.
35.
On-site inorganic granular soils thatare free of debris or contamination are
considered suitable for placement as compacted fill. A representative of
ReSQlution 2005-040
Page 52 of 61
Exhibit 'C"
Page 4 of 9
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
TEL.A. shall provide guidance for acceptability and placement of on-site
clay fill materials.
Observation and field tests shall be performed during grading by a
representative of TELA in order to assist the contractor in obtaining the
proper moisture content and required degree of compaction. Where less
than the required degree if compaction indicated, additional compactive
effort any necessary adjustments in the moisture content of the soil should
be made to obtain the required compaction.
To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations,
footing excavations should be observed to be clean of loosened soil and
debris before placing steel or concrete and probed for soft areas. If soft or
loose soils or unsatisfactory materials are encountered, these materials
should be removed and replaced with compacted fill.
Wherever, in the opinion of a representative of TEL.A, as unsatisfactory
condition is being created in any area, whether by cutting or filling, then
the work should not proceed in that area until the condition has been
corrected.
Prior to approval of final design plans, the project applicant shall submit
the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
for review and consistency of FAA criteria and regulations.
Prior to approval of final design plans, the project appliœnt shall file a
Notice of Proposed Construction with the FAA. Conditions placed on the
project by the FAA shall be incorporated in the final design and
construction of the proposed project.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, theproj!'içt applicant shall provide
proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit, which includes" copy of the projeçt permit number and two
copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Prior to the issùance.of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide
a NPDES Post construction storm watermanag¡pment plan per Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all
Structural and Non-Structural Best Management Practices for the
proposed project.
Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan to include all
structural Best Management Practices.
Exhibit "C.
Page 5 of 9
Resolution 200&-040
Page 53 of 61
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that
includes a description of all-applicable Structural and Non-Structural Best
Management Practices, which would apply to this project.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall receive
approval of NPDES<Permitforthe State Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the proposed on-site dewatering operations.
Building plans for the proposed project shall reflect that restaurant uses be
fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by
the Building Safety Division oftheGity of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on
the local sanitary sewer system and regional water quality. Such grease
interceptor shall. be regularly maintained. so as to remain fully functional.
The proposed project would be subject to City of Santa Ana Federal Clean
Water Protection Enterprise Fees.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a
final surface water runoff evaluation for review and approval showing
existing and proposed facilities and methods of draining the site without
exceeding the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be
responsible for the construction of onsite storm drain systems.
Prior to the recordation of a final subdivision map. or the issuance of any
grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the
City of Santa Ana Engineering Department for approval. The Acoustical
Analysis Report shall describe. the acoustical design features of the
structures required to satisfy an interior noise level of no more than 45
dBACNEL. ¡rladdition, th!íl\.Acoustical Analysis Report shall contain
satisfactory evidence indicating. that the sound attenuation measures
specified in tMe apprQved a.cou¡¡ti~lreports have beenincQrporated into
the design of thef project. These. measures areappUcable to those
residential units that directly overlook Macarthur Boulevard and/or the SR-
55 Freeway. > Such measurescoulctinclude (but nQtbelimited to) the
inclusion of fOrced-air ventilation . allowing . window and doors to remain
shut, the use of acolJstic-ratedwindow¡¡ and/orslíding door assemblies, a
reduction in the physical size ofthewindows and/or sliding doors, the use
of solid core exterior doors, the use of gaskets and seals on all external
doors and windows, and any other measures deemed acceptable to the
City of Santa Ana that will attain the 45cdBA CNEL interior noise level.
All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to
minimize noise emissions.
R(¡$oiution 2005-040
Page 54 of 61
Exhibit 'C"
Page 6 of 9
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers no less efficient than those originally installed.
The pile-driving equipment shall be enclosed. on <III sides with an
acoustical b <lnket barrier that prÇlvidesa minimum sÇlund transmission
class (STC) rating of 30. The height of the blanketed enclosure shall be at
least 20 feet tall. With the exception of ingres!>legress, there shall be no
openings Çlrgaps in the enplÇlsure and ingress/egress points are to remain
closed during pile driving activities. All noise-producing equipment shall
be located no closer than 6 feet from the blanket barrier.
All stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) and
servicing of equipment shall be located as far from external land uses as
is feasible.
The name and contact number of a contact person shall be posted on-site.
Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City
of Santa Ana Planning Division.
Prior to issuance of l3uilding Permits, the project applicant shall submit a
Security Plan to the Police department for approval.
A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be installed at each
stair landing. All doors leading into stairwells shall be equipped with a
minimum 5-inch by 20.inch fire related window. The last flight of stairs
shall be fully enclosed at its base.
The proposed project structure shall be designed in accordance with the
City of Santa Ana Parking Structure Standards.
All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum 1 foot-candle of
light.
All elevators serving the residential component of the project shall be
equipped with card readers at the garage levels to restrict unauthorized
access into the residential towers. The elevator lobbies shall be designed
and constructed of material that allows maximum visibility of the interior of
the lobby from the parking decks. Glazing material shall be used to its
maximum extent.
The elevator adjacent to drop-off area shall be designed with a glass
backed elevator cab.
Exhibit "C.
Page 7 of 9
Resolution 20Q5-040
Page 55 oHI1
63.
64.
65,
66.
67.
68.
69.
70,
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit
evidence to the City of Santa Ana ofa fee payment between the developer
and the SAUSD to offset school facility related impacts.
Prior to theil!sUanceof certificate of occupancy permits the project
developershall meet Municipal Code Parkland requirements through the
dedicationoflarIdànd/orthêþayment dfparkimpaêt fees, as determined
by the Planning Division.
Prior to the issuance of building permits thêproject applicant shall provide
a fair share contribution for the restriping of the southbolJnd approach
along Grand Avenue to provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared
left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide
a fair share contribution for the restriping of the southbound approach of
Imperial Promenade to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, a shared left
turn-through lane and dual right lanes.
The project applicant shall be subject to Transportation System
Improvement Fees and San Joaquin Hills corridor Fees.
Prior to final approval of the proposed project by the City of Santa Ana, the
projectapplìcantshall receive all rIecessary approvals from the FAA and
the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, unless overruled by the
City Council.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall
coordinate with the City of Santa Ana Water Department regarding the
depths, locations and sizes of proposed water distribution facilities.
Water conservation measures recommended by the State Department of
Water Resources and applicable state laws requiring the use of water-
efficient plumbing fixtures and recommendations for low-water-using
landscape shall be incorporated into the project design as appropriate.
GPM are prohibited.
B.
Police Department
1.
A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan
check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the projects
security including security personnel, surveillance equipment, and
hardware. The project will be required to have a minimum of four state
licensed uniformed security personnel. One security officer will be
required for each building, one for the podium level and one for the
parking garage.
ResQMion 2005-040
Page 56 of 61
Exhibit 'C'
Page 8 of 9
2.
A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be installed at each
stair landing. All doors leading into stairwells shall be equipped with a
minimum 5-inch by 20-inch fire rated window. The last flight of stairs shall
be fully enclosed at its base.
3.
The City of Santa Ana parking structure design standards shall be
followed in its entirety. Duress alarms allowing voice communication with
security personnel shall be placed in strategic locations, approved by the
Police Department, throughout the parking garage.
4.
All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum maintained 1
footcandle of light.
5.
All elevators serving the residential component of the projl'ict shall be
equipped with card readers at the garage levels to restrict unauthorized
access into the residential towers. The elevator lobbies shall be designed
and constructed of material that allows maximum visibility of the interior of
the lobby from the parking decks. Glazing material will be used to its
maximum extent.
6.
The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at six months, at one year
and then annually thereafter by the Police Department for any modification
to the conditions of approval.
7.
Elevator adjacent to drop-off shall be designed with convex mirrors.
Exhibit "C"
Page 9 of 9
Resolution 2005-040
Page 57 of61
Conditions for Approval for Tentative Tract Map fIIo.2004.05
¡Countv Map fIIo. 16556)
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 (County Map No. 16556) 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 allotherapplicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation oftheconditional use permit.
A.
Plannina Division
1.
Comply with all conditions and requirements from the Development Review
Committee (DRC) for the development project (DP 04-26).
2.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's ) for this project must
be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map.
3.
All real estate signage must be removed from the site within one year from
the date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as
determined by the Planning Manager.
4.
The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building
permits.
5.
The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by
the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and
specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
6.
Development within the area of the map is subject to development and
permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance.
7.
Development within the area of the map is subject to design and
development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance.
8.
Two copies of the recorded final map and CC&R's shall be submitted each
to the Planning Division, Fire Department, Building Division, and Public
Works Agency within 10 days of recordation.
Resolution 2005~O40
Page 58 of61
Exhibit "D"
Conditions for Approvai for Variance No. 2004-11
Variance No. 2004-11 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Planning Manager, with applicablE;> sections of the. $ant¡¡¡ Ana Municipal Code, the
CaliforrÜaAdministr¡¡¡tive COde, thl'i UnifQrm Fire Code, the UnifQrmBuiløing Code, and all
other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition IistE;>d below prior to exercising
the rights conferred by this variance.
The applicant must remain in compli¡¡¡nce with all conditions listl'idbelow throughout the life
of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation of the variance.
A.
Plannina Division
1.
All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review
approval of DP No. 02-36.
2.
Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning
Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief
is available or the conditional use permit must be amended.
3.
The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential buildings must
consist of a sandstone material subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
4.
A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot have bedrooms and
bathrooms back to an adjacent unit.
5.
A stor"ge plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The
plan shall indicate the location and square footage of storage space for each
unit, with a minimum of 128 cubic square feet devoted to each unit.
6.
A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls
will function must be submitted prior to building plan check. Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that restrict truck delivery hours to
non-peak periods shall be submitted prior to building plan check.
7.
A Sign Program addressing signage on the south elevation of the parking
structure must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior
to submittal into building plan check. The sign program shall inciude
details of the signage (text, materials) on the parking structure as well as a
maintenance plan delineating the long-term repair and replacement of any
graphic.
Exhibit "E"
Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2005-040
Page 59 of 61
8.
9.
12.
13.
The project shall incorporate on-site professional property management
for both the residential and commercial.components.
Balconies for the. project shall maintain a minimum dimension of not less
than six feet in any direction.
10.
A fireplace shåll be provided within each common area lobby for the
project.
11.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided for the
project. At a minimum, theCC&R's shall include provisions pertaining to
owner occupancy, restrictions on home based businesses, and the
prohibition of storage on balconies.
A Public Art Pian which proposes a specific work(s) of art for a specific
location(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. All public art approved by the Planning Commission shall be
completely installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the project.
A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette,
the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts
and outdoor furniture for the retail area and private podium.
Resolution 2005-040
Page 60 of 61
Exhibit "E"
Page 2 of 2
Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2004-06
Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with 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. In addition, it shall meet the following
conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below Drior to exercising
the rights conferred by this site plan approval.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the develQpment project Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation of the site plan review approval.
A.
Planning Division
1.
The project must remain in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan
Review (DP No. 02-36).
Exhibit "F"
Resolution :W05-040
Page 61 of 61