The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31A - 3770 W. MCFADDEN AVE. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~taJ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-21 AND MODIFICATION OF VARIANCE NO. 1995-09 TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW SERVICE AND A REDUCTION IN PARKING AT 3770 WEST MCFADDEN AVENUE - RIO VISTA WEST, LLC, APPLIC~.! ~ ~ ~a~ APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Ordinance on 151 Reading o Ordinance on 2nd Reading o Implementing Resolution o Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 as conditioned and modification to Variance No. 1995-09 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On August 8, 2005, the Planning Commission approved and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-251, adopted a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 as conditioned and adopted a resolution approving the modification to Variance No. 1995-09 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Leo absent) to allow drive-through window service and a reduction in parking in the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) zoning district at 3770 West McFadden Avenue (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission added a condition to replace all dead or underdeveloped plants, trees, and groundcover within the existing shopping center. Additionally, staff was directed to work with the applicant in adding a landscape treatment to the southerly wall of the site and to evaluate spillover lighting along the rear of the parking lot, which could negatively impact residents to the south. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. /,-- //'-1 M. Trevino \Exe utive Director Panning & Building Agency VC:rb vc\reports\cup05-21-var95-09.cc 31A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action ~"~-"" / \ ~Iil..~~. / -t\ULaLJon 1 - ~ .~.'.". "i, , .~ 0- , .., ,... PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY RIO VISTA WEST, LLC FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005- 21 AND MODIFICATION OF VARIANCE NO. 1995- 09 TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW SERVICE AND A REDUCTION IN PARKING AT 3770 WEST MCFADDEN AVENUE Prepared by Verny Carvaj al APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Set Public Hearing For DENIED o Applicant's Request o Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO (~~tive Director I ~ ~ ~-~ Planning Man er -j-L RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-251. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving the modification to Variance No. 1995- 09 as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Rio Vista West, LLC is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow drive-though window service and the modification of an existing parking variance to allow the construction of two new restaurant pads at 3770 West McFadden Avenue. Property Description The property is an II-acre, rectangular shaped parcel located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. The site is located within the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP-2) zoning district and has a General Plan designation of General Commercial (GC). Surrounding uses include commercial, retail and a school to the north, single-family residential to the south, and commercial uses to the east and west (Exhibits 1 and 2) . EXHIBIT A 31A-2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 Variance No. 1995-09 August 8, 2005 Page 2 The Riverview West parcels containing leasable square feet large anchor tenant, feet of retail space site. Parking for tenant, with a total Marketplace lS comprised of five separate legal nine building pads with approximately 135,000 of retail space that was constructed in 1995. A Wal-Mart, occupies an additional 134,000 square on a separate parcel to the east of the proj ect the development site is shared with the anchor of 1,324 parking spaces provided. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 1,750 square foot Starbucks drive- through restaurant along Harbor Boulevard between Buildings Hand J and a 4,000 square foot sit-down restaurant pad along McFadden Avenue between Buildings Land K. In conjunction with the new restaurant construction, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow drive- through window service for the proposed Starbucks restaurant. As required by code, an 80-foot separation between the pick-up window and the order board and another 80-foot separation between the order board and the entrance to the drive-through lane has been provided (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) . Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a variance from Section 41-1341 to allow a reduction in required parking for the two proposed building pads. An amendment to an existing variance approved in 1995 is requested in order allow for an 11 percent (157 parking spaces) reduction, as the original variance allowed for only a seven percent parking reduction. Analysis of the Issues Drive-Through Window Service Drive-through window service lS considered a critical operational component of a quick serve restaurant according to this applicant. The conditional use permit has been reviewed based on the criteria established by the City and has been found to be consistent with the operational standards for drive-through establishments. To avoid impact to the health, safety and general welfare of persons working or residing in the area, numerous mitigation measures have been incorporated into this project. The existing on-site circulation system has been designed to avoid conflicts between vehicles in the parking area and the drive- through lane. Also, the ability for cars to stack onto Harbor Boulevard or McFadden Avenue has been eliminated through the location and design of the proposed stacking lane. 31A-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 Variance No. 1995-09 August 81 2005 Page 3 Parking Variance To assist in the development of a successful retail center I a revision to the parking variance approved in 1995 is being requested by the applicant. In 1995, a seven percent (95 parking spaces) reduction was approved. The applicant is requesting an additional 5/750 square feet of retail area resulting in a greater parking demand of 56 spaces. Based on the Cityls code requirements, a total of 1/479 parking spaces will be required for the retail center I including the proposed dri ve- through and sit-down restaurant pads. A total of 1/324 spaces are provided. A deficiency of 157 parking spaces is the result. This request would equate to an 11 percent reduction of parking. In order to analyze whether the existing parking count would be adequate to support the proposed expansion, a parking analysis was prepared for the project by Douglas MacPhersonl a registered traffic engineer. The Shared Parking Analysis for the Riverview West Marketplace provides an analysis of the parking demand based on the different activity patterns and uses within the center. It reviewed the Cityls parking requirement for retail and restaurant uses and proposed an al ternati ve demand based on other parking generation factors and/or actual parking usage. Two methodologies were used while conducting the parking analysis. The first methodology was the Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking concept (Tables 1 and 2) and the second combined actual parking lot counts for the existing land uses plus the proposed land uses per the actual code requirements (Tables 3, 4 and 5) Both methodologies concluded that sufficient parking was provided to meet the peak parking demands of the shopping center. The study found that the existing 1,324 parking spaces available wi thin the Riverview West Marketplace are sufficient to accommodate future parking demand (Exhibit 8). The variance modification will allow two new buildings in underutilized areas of the shopping center that will benefit the community by providing an increased level of service to individuals who live and work in the area. This new development will facilitate the revitalization of the North Harbor areal as per the goals established within the North Harbor Specific Plan. 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 I approval is recommended for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 and modification to Variance No. 1995-09 as conditioned (Exhibits 9 and 10) 31A-4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 Variance No. 1995-09 August 8, 2005 Page 4 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-251 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 11). The Negative Declaration was available for public review from July 29, 2005 through August 17, 2005. The mitigation monitoring program is contained as a condition of approval and has been attached as Exhibit 10 in this report. ~. ~.c::- 7..... Verny Carvajal Associate Planner CP VC:JM vc\reports\cupOS-21-var9s-09.pc 31A-5 ~ :'------) A1 '\ i' 1_-',---,:1 Rl_ ~~ \~_// :~_/~).~ Sp.2 "~~Dl~-------::~;------- - ~;I .- ,- -- . FIRST ST. ~ C2 C2 ,'r-,~ ',C2,r-,.1 I"" M1 ~ SO'32 ~ R2 ~ :: : ~ :: i! I 'Ml~ '" ': "'.1 ~ I.. "', I' ,. ! Oil' ::_J,-__J:_j:~ Sp. ~D-34 --------- ,r---M1---,.- 2 ;~:j~~ ~l1l.fi,: ' L -- -- - --'.1 rl'l 1,-....., II Ir-------'I , 'I ',', ',: " 'L_______'.I I 1\'_1 ~,-JI :L~~~~~~~~: -=-=.-=.~-=-=.~,J --II --""]1 '----------: I t:m~ A2 ~ I -, - r ,r "I r ,r ,r ,r,' '. ~ ST ~ l...=- -=- -=- J l:....:-.: J I II r I II II II It SP- 300' I , ,:_-,:__L.!:__L.!:_-,: 2 A2 0\ \ A~,-=--=--=-~ r--r--r--r--r PROJEC~T '" I II I I I[ I[ I[ I[ 1 A1 I~-_-_-l~-_-_-~: :: :: :: :: I[ SITE ", , " , - - - - - SP'2 ~Rd~[ ~ :~:~~~~~~j;---,: .., :'~i i ,/~~ - ~ R2; I I~ \\ \ ~==:..l. ~ ;/ ; ~ . . I 1\ II" R2 ~ Rl ~ Rl I T PI Ul ~ L ,,~ -;:::./ J I A1 I Z I 1:'3299 ~~*199" 18608 H~D \ R:EW~STEA~Pl SP-2' w~ I R1 R1 HTOOAV :.--- :~TA R1 Al oJ I ~ ~ R1 ~ ~DA. ~ 1 I" ~ ROBERTS l ~ R1 \ ~ Sp-2 i Al R1 R1 _ _ DAKE L-- L-l~L-::=... c a, I _ R1 B R1 R1 I ~V-- o ~ fi;r ~. 1 trl.-''''' e c R1 ~ R1 ~ R1 Rl SP'2 ~ 00 r '-"'1 t R1 .:.- R1 i ilir'"\ \ R1. 1'--11--" " ~I ~ )~) ';::J / ./ L l_~~J 1: ll,_':__:' R1 ( c~ ----,'" ,,'------- U) I ~ "1 I 1 ["J I R1 'II', "II , ~ ~ '_____"__J,___-'~__'L__~ L ~- . ~~, ~;= ()'ffi ~ , ~ Q?9"9~ ~ R3 -rr- ~ " " I' I' " R1:: R1 " " City of Fountain Valley A1 -B C-SM C1 C1-MD C2 C3 C3--A C4 C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS.ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL l;;Y :t~I~~ ~ (j IIII /' " II R2 R2J! I~ R2 ~IR2 R200 R2 A1-PAO J 11/11// /" I.:: :: ~ ~I ~ I1111 II ,~----t'.:=-~\ ~ - i, 0 ~ /I, I I ,\'. ~ SP-2 ~ r:Jr:I: N /I I :-=- ----- ._----.- -. :r 51'="" · "I//~II'III-_~C2' ;, R201 b SP-2 I ~-"",.-..-, 5P-2 I ,'I I 1/ III 117' - I" '''2 I .....:::. (--:::.J-:....a-_-.....w.; R2t~/ ~ II /I I 1,....,\" ..,.... 4 C NlIRTe--.....SO.49.......-.-.ir. ~ I!- Ii/' 1-;:====, ~I II..' Q ['.....----// I::A/, 1__'11 111111'1 ~ R2 I L "I (- - - - ~ I " .... ...... I,' " I I.. _ _ _ _..I ~ II I, ~I R2 5l SUII) \\..-------J /.........1 ~ I /'Ir---- It II 11~1 d ~ -- ------ " / "R2/' II ~ I' "A1I,'l' I R2 ~ /'\..) r'< ,111..-- ..II II ltil o -,--------;,.\, /1",1 1,1 Ir--"" II_JL._IL.~l1 i5>~ PINEST. I-' R2 1/ '\) / /I I I \\ --,--.-t '-"- R2 ~ R2' 1/' ~ I 1/', I 'll" " 'I R2 ~ II: ':.... -:... -...,- ( \ '\ 0 II', I I II 0 II II II J: II \ t \ \~, ~ 1/', I I II ~ ~ I II j I I J I I \ " \.. 1/', I I I I 't II II 11 /1 ( I 1\ \,) 1/', I I II <? II II 11// II LJ U Q:' l::-J___l___ _.JL_ll.:;...../ I. IU Rl ~1 U 1~ ~ r ~ R\K H1]. : G~:'1 f5 R1 R1 i 0&<(-" R1 t. A 1 -R1 .. R1~ST R1 ~ 1 j~~ I) ,,~'W", J ~ R~ R:~~,: 0 j~.~~~ ~ : A ~ R1 0 R1 ~\ /"i~ R~I;' 01 R2'~: (~t; /~~M A :I~r .. , I SP- R2 2 ~ --- -~~~ -:=.-,. - Sp-2 R2 R2 I, " I II II I M1' c_', I \,,-- --' \r- , ' R1 IRl '0 ~ R_ . ~ a::_WIU~ CAMILlE ST SP-2 ~ Al _ ~, I o."A;;"": I o "~~r ,tA1 &Al~A' _..sp,,-,-w ~ I _~_~ . 2 ... .... R1 Rl ~ ~!--' . ~'I-' R1 ~ R1J ~ i < /. R1 ~ 5 1 WILLITS S1 R1 ,-- R. ~ : R3 ~ I ~~ ~f-t+-- a:: r L._ ;;: --. u.. R1 ~ '" R3 R1 R1 Rl - R2 R2 R1 R2 R3 R4 RE SD SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN 660'------ R1 iSP.2 A1 R1 Rl. ij ~ A1 A CUP 05-21NA 95-9 RIO VISTA WEST, LLC 3770 WEST MC FADDEN AVENUE A rPY' l' = 1000 FEET P LAN N N G R1 " z . r . ~ ~ . " -'. I I I !i CAlEND CR GC Ml M2 MO o P PCD PRD COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A N D B U L D EXHIBIT 1 31A-6 - = 500 FEET N G A G ENe Y COMMERCIAL '" l) lJ.J ::;; ::;; o l) A P LAN N INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL MIS C. MIS C. Me FADDEN AVENUE c a: ~ w ...J :) o m a: o m a: <C ::I: COMMERCIAL <: iii <: iii <: iii <: iii <: iii <: iii <: iii CUP 05-21NA 95-9 RIO VISTA WEST, LLC 3770 WEST MC FADDEN AVENUE A ${' N G AND B U L D N G AGE N C Y EXHIBIT 2 31A-7 en ~ w '" en ...J ~ I!! <( ::Ii !i , w Uil' to I., Z CD"I f=' !" l'i:1 ~~~Il'lr w::i~1 "'13 I ill l !,I .t, Ii! I!! I !. \il" Ill!, 'I'. I" Bi !d!:l, inh 'Ii!! i1!i!IB. ~h~ ! ~ i!ll ll'~ll !!il,t ~IW~! li~l l ~ 'U Ii,l Ifi!il dlt I hl~'!l~ ii!~ l ;;J. I.! 'Ii! lllr! ;'!~h Illllji~ ~l'! I a: '11 '! 13 I iljq; III !';I 1\! !! ~ lU !lli! !I!,l !!Ili.il Ilit!l!h ill!! !! ,it , !~ ( l I i~ ill ~!!it\j" t~I\' I .ll lll! ~u, !' H I iil'lil ~, 'I !II ~w ,IHI Jilll , ~l!l!l\ :t la : IL . , c~a&1A 95-9 EXHIBIT 3 1111 ~ z !~i ~~I! ~ 1< , IIII U) 1,1 I~ i~1 m ! ~!i ~ ! . 1 ! ' I , i " , ~ , I ! Uu. I i - , Ill!, fi. }- , ~ I ;1 2: ,~. ?i : ii Ul u. ii !! i~ .. lq' \!"I~ ) ~ !, I~! .. 'J ;11 ~ ~~iill ,l~ <{ n .h.l a idi ~1. diH , , 1, H II ! U I, H ! . Ill! 15[ ~ ~ n '~ I,,,! Inn I 1111 i li iIl11111,l. B; ; ~ia!~ ~; ~~_~ ~ ;,;,; ~ ,~iin Hi i ~I'il!~t~~; ! ~ : : ~ : ~ : : : ~ : :: ~ ! ! ' ! : ! 1 : ! ! ,!i! ! ~ !!, , ~ ~II;. !I~;. !':I,.' 'I,I.I..'~I, 'II, '1,1 i Iii. .uu !lIt!!!!! ~nn nn1nn , ,fn ~ I nn rnn 1,li . -;b~-.. r+--- !zl'~ ILjh.""'j"I',,:i,.i:::,.li;' g II Ill..., ,~, ~ e f ~+--t-----' P I ~ l, " '" '.11 'l" ' J ! i ii, 'I~I' i i !: a:;.", ,: . il i,U l' 11.,.",'....,[,. '.".'.'.i..,.i 111111 n n 11 1 1'HLiJ ~I~ ~, ~a en ; :.< en ...J ~ ~ ::::;; ~ It L ,O-,v <( i:! <( "' IL <( " '" \I ... ~ t ~ANDsc.APE ARfA ~. ~. L.ANDSCAPE AREA 11 I ~/\ ..:.- '0 '9' "' IL <( ~<( !~ en ~ ~ W ~ U) ~ u.: if)- - U cri cr: =:J <( mou O::::~CX) <( -~ f--~ U) ..... Il' ~<( ~~ 56.00' 15 I ] -- ---15 ~ UI ~ I <( I" I ~ 000 !:;J I E~ll ~~~ t ~'l : ~ i~~I~Pfiln !~ 16 : , . I .. : : I all < lUll , Ii! '\ ) ~z ~~ ~ L ~ I D - w IL ~ ~ I ~:<: D ~8 z - ()z <( _ 1-]: ----I ~~ ~ I <( oc _ \!) ~ I w L - ! ! ~! I O~ · z z <:JJ: .",jI ~ 00 ~ o :::Il 00 lOb <:JJ: tGi 10 lULl';> Cl1 '; " lOb", <:JJ:~ .",jILiJ iIi~ ~- 8 r LOADIN6 c'u~ 95-9 EXHIBIT 4 ~e,.or'"""T,",'" DoO",ld<,>n.,.,,,,.c;"IU;-O'-'\O}DI;coli">i]\'''T''''J,,''''.'''~oo,,,oo;OD<\<;.OO?'.""ol.j Ul 6 U) :;: ~ w '" U) ...J ...J Cl. <( ii: w z I:':! w <( Cl :; " LO + I n::fk-=+ --r I .... .OO'OL ~.'I' M._ i ITL~----,- -....:::....-- ~ .- z 0 W Z o c;:: f- 0 0 Zu..: <l:ZO <l: . 1.L>cr: cr: (f) U ::J 2Wo... <l: 0 0... ::J f-6 s:>- I (f) _ f- f- W 7 LO :::! cr: LO ::J I'-- m r<) -+- IX) lL: OJ IX) ~I ~i/ p::i f5~ ~i # I tll I j IIICl1:J IIDI--- I I I cuB dfA.,i~5-9 EXHIBIT 5 III1 ~~;< @~z P;H Jill ~ .d~ i <( , "I ~::><( 71'- ~ ~~'i ..J~lt I ~:: 1 i lZ~ ~ . i W ! ' ! : I f~ , , ! : i! Ii! i - , ill!, ~J 'cJ ~ cJ rt' U Z C) U ~ IT-j L ,- <i S Lel -~ .~ 4'-1 T O~ 7 ;;g;;: <{ ~ ~ F ;;g;;: <{ OC =:ll <{ t1 w OC o w. O:! OC.' <{~ ~W ;;g;;::;;! Whl ~ }', I '--- w W LL LL o o If) '" o ::J OJ 0: <( e- If) z o I- <( > W -l W I I- a: o z z o I- <( > W -I W I- (j) <( W ~ r . " ~ ~ ~ f=J': I~'" ','. I,' , ' I , I . " .. CUP~~\ !IS-9 z o I- <( > W -.J W I I- ::> o (j) z 0, I- <( > W -l W I- (j) W ~ Q) () ~ 0... +-' Q) ..Y. l..... ~ ~ ~ o CO ~ <(<( IU v5 ro~ c ~<( "" ro ~ ....... (/'l C ~ro UV) :J ...0 ~ ro .j....J V) +-' Cf) Q) S ~ Q) > l..... Q) > a:: I Ul ~ ~ -< .:.: ~ ~lj> u [) Z lU \I) lU -l \I) Z I- Z <( -l lL , 1:111 , l ! I !l rt~ ,j , 'l 'l l 'I {~ !ill {~ ! ~ I II I ! I ! I l l l ! !:ll i ~ ~ ~ i I ! l ! Ii I II i h II I II i I" ! I ! I I II,! ! II Ill: ! I ! I II i In ~ II /1 j ~ II Ii I i I! I I! Ii I D II ffi ~ ~ II 00 0 Ell D II ~:ii! I~ IJ~ ~~I! t ~~. - ~~~ijl ~ Ii I ,... j,l . , I j' -. I ! Ui I i -----;n Ul ~ ~ !:!!! ~ i . l , , , t!1! I III ~ ! I i / i ~lj> Ul~ i~ :iJ .. ...:.1 r .'" ~l !\Ill cu F&1A 425-9" EXHIBIT 7 :t: O~ z ~ <( .",J IiJL, \0 ~ IiJL, <( ~ o ~ <( .",J .",J <( ~ FO 1iJL,5' w!<l 0:- ~.. O~ O&l 'iOO<' IW II :91lli' I"" "'I fioop.O'ld ~1\"""PUll Itnl~'3001-U.'-'\"0(] ,!l<OO\.,,[dm... ."",,," no.gjO<;DD.!I"""" 'Q<<"d\ :.. Table 1 - Overall Shared Parking Demand Riverview West Typical Weekday Hour of Retail Restaurant Total Available Day Percentage Spaces Percentage Spaces Spaces Spaces Required Required (Demand) 7 a.m. 8 38 2 3 41 619 8a.m. 18 86 5 7 93 567 9 a.m. 42 200 10 14 214 446 10 a.m. 68 324 20 27 351 309 11 a.m. 90 428 30 40 454 206 12 noon 100 476 50 67 543 117 1 p.m. 100 476 70 93 569 91 2 p.m. 100 476 60 80 556 104 3 p.m. 90 428 60 80 508 152 4 p.m. 80 381 50 67 448 212 5 p.m. 79 376 70 93 469 191 6 p.m. 90 428 90 120 548 112 7 p.m. 90 428 100 133 561 99 8 p.m. 80 381 100 133 514 146 9 p.m. 61 290 100 133 423 237 10 p.m. 32 152 90 120 272 388 11 p.m. 13 62 70 93 155 505 12 mid. - - 50 67 67 593 Hourly percentages per Exhibit 28 of "Shared Parking", ULI, Washington, D.C. 1983 and data supplied by Santa Ana Planning Department specific to The City of Santa Ana; Restaurant Peak Parking Demand Factor of 10.0 spaces II ,000 Sq.Ft. GLA per City of Santa Ana Parking Code; Retail Peak Parking Demand Factor of3.8/1,000 Sq. Ft. GLA(Peak Parking Demand Factors per Exhibit 26 ofULI "Shared n__lp~_""," .....'"~~A"T \ CUP 05-21NA 95-9 ffl~li ~ Table 2 - Overall Shared Parking Demand Riverview West Typical Saturday Hour of Retail Restaurant Total Available Day Percentage Spaces Percentage Spaces Spaces Spaces Required Required (Demand) 7 a.m. 3 15 2 3 18 642 8 a.m. 10 51 3 4 55 605 9 a.m. 40 200 50 67 267 393 10 a.m. 80 401 50 67 468 192 11 a.m. 80 401 70 93 494 166 12 noon 85 425 100 133 558 102 1 p.m. 95 476 100 133 609 51 2 p.m. 100 501 70 93 594 66 3 p.m. 100 501 40 53 554 106 4 p.m. 90 451 30 40 491 169 5 p.m. 75 376 60 60 436 224 6 p.m. 65 326 100 133 459 201 7 p.m. 60 301 100 133 434 226 8 p.m. 55 276 100 133 409 251 9 p.m. 40 200 100 133 333 327 10 p.m. 38 191 95 126 317 343 11 p.m. 13 65 85 113 178 482 12 mid. - - .. 70 93 93 567 Hourly percentages per Exhibit 28 of "Shared Parking", ULI, Washington, D.C. 1983 and data supplied by Santa Ana Planning Department specific to The City of Santa Ana; Restaurant Peak Parking Demand Factor of 10.0 spaces II ,000 Sq.Ft. GLA per consistency with City of Santa Ana Parking Code; Retail Peak Parking Demand Factor of 4.0/1,000 Sq. Ft. GLA (Peak Parking Demand Factors per Exhibit 26 ofULI "Shared Parking" study.) 31A!r14 Table 3 Available Parking Spaces Saturday October 16, 2004 Parking Existing Time of Day Area Spaces Ipm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 1 37 7 9 10 12 10 2 35 8 8 11 12 14 3 40 26 22 21 20 25 4 40 18 17 19 21 24 5 42 21 20 22 24 26 6 44 20 21 23 22 23 7 44 20 22 22 19 28 8 42 24 21 24 22 25 9 40 19 19 18 21 23 10 42 18 17 20 23 22 11 40 15 15 17 19 21 12 24 23 24 22 24 24 13 14 11 13 12 11 12 14 65 61 62 62 63 64 15 15 3 5 8 7 9 16 29 29 27 29 26 28 17 36 11 11 13 14 15 18 T otals 631 334 333 353 360 393 Percent - 52.9% 52.8% 55.9% 57.1% 62.3% Note: See Appendix exhibit 1 for location of parking areas 1-18 shown in table above. Parking areas 14 and 16 are the proposed locations of two new uses on the site. 31A~15 Table 4 Available Parking Spaces Saturday October 23, 2004 Parking Existing Time of Day Area Spaces Ipm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 1 37 13 9 19 19 21 2 35 14 15 12 17 19 3 40 16 18 18 19 17 4 40 15 13 15 16 18 5 42 18 21 19 19 21 6 44 11 13 14 15 16 7 44 16 17 20 19 22 8 42 19 16 20 25 27 9 40 23 25 32 24 26 10 42 19 20 17 21 20 11 40 17 15 16 20 19 12 24 20 22 23 23 24 13 14 12 13 11 13 13 .......... .65 ..... 64 65 61 64... ... 64 i. 15 15 8 6 5 7 8 ...... g 29 .27..... 28 26 J. 27 > ... 27.iT < ..... ....... 17 36 15 16 18 18 17 T otals 631 327 332 346 366 379 Percent - 51.8% 52.6% 54.8% 58.0% 60.1% Note: See Appendix exhibit 1 for location of parking areas 1-18 shown in table above. Parking areas 14 and 16 are the proposed locations of two new uses on the site. \ \ 31A~16 Table 5 Available Parking Spaces Monday October 25,2004 - Saturday October 30,2004 - Sunday October 31, 2004 Parking Existing Area Spaces Noon 10/25 6 ill 10/30 4 ill 10/31 1 37 12 24 6 2 35 9 22 5 3 40 21 22 12 4 40 23 19 19 5 42 36 24 10 6 44 27 21 11 7 44 33 22 20 8 42 29 32 25 9 40 36 26 20 10 42 29 22 20 11 40 27 17 18 12 24 20 24 20 13 14 14 14 11 17 36 631 18 431 15 399 16 312 Totals Percent 68.3% 63.2% 49.4% Note: See Appendix exhibit 1 for location of parking areas 1-18 shown in table above. Parking areas 14 and 16 are the proposed locations of two new uses on the site. 31 Af"l517 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 August 8, 2005 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact A. Will the proposed contribute to the community? use provide a general well service or being of facility which will the neighborhood or The proposed Starbucks drive-through will contribute to the general well being of the area by providing a new restaurant with amenities available to both pedestrians and vehicles traveling along Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. B. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? It is not anticipated that the drive-through window service, in conjunction with the proposed conditions, will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons working in the area. The circulation, design, and layout of the proposed drive-though lane has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts that may be generated as a result of the new drive-through lane. Conditions have been incorporated into the project to help minimize any adverse impacts that the proj ect might generate as the result of its drive-through use. The project will be reviewed after ninety days, six months, one year and annually thereafter to ensure that the business is in compliance with conditions approved for the project. C. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The new restaurant with drive-through service, in conjunction with upgrades of landscaping and circulation, will provide both a visual upgrade and new economic acti vi ty for this area of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. The overall economic stability of the area will be strengthened with additional commercial services in the area. CUP 05-21NA 95-9 EXHIBIT i 31A-1 is Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 August 8, 2005 Page 2 of 2 D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations specified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal use? and conditions Code for such The proposed restaurant and drive-through window operation will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and design standards for drive- through facilities. The drive-through lane will meet the stacking lane requirement of 160 linear feet, as required by code. Except for the parking requirements, the proposed project is consistent with the site development standards established in the North Harbor Specific Plan. The proposed project is requesting approval of variance to reduce its required amount of parking. Should the variance be approved, the project will be consistent with the North Harbor Specific Plan. E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The drive-through lane for Starbucks is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial as support commercial uses, including restaurants, are permitted by right. The project supports General Plan Land Use Policy Number 2.7, which promotes the rehabilitation of commercial properties and encourages increased levels of capital investment. 31A-19 AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 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 the conditional use permit. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 04-101. 2. Any amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division and Police Department for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the conditional use permit must be amended. 3. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-251 are incorporated as conditions of approval for this project. 4. The berm and proposed landscaping surrounding the drive-through lane must consist of mature landscaping that will adequately screen the drive-through lane. 31A-20 Variance Amendment No. 1995-09 August 8, 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 Ri verview West Marketplace is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial development. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Douglas MacPherson, Traffic Engineer, 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 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 owner's ability to provide new development within an underutilized shopping center. The proposed tenants will bring additional revenue and clientele to the existing shopping center and will not create any encumbrances to property rights. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property because the proposed tenant pads are within an existing shopping center 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. CUP 05-21NA 95-9 EXHIBIT 10 31A-21 Variance Amendment No. 1995-09 August 8, 2005 Page 2 of 2 D. 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 both the drive-though Starbucks and proposed sit-down restaurant are both in conformance with Ci ty development standards for commercial uses and are consistent with the General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. 31A-22 AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions for Approval Modification to Variance No. 1995-09 is approved subject to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code applicable regulations. compliance, to all applicable Administrative and all other 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 project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 04-101 and all existing conditions of approval as part of Variance 1995-09 as approved on March 18, 1996. 2. Parking reduction may not exceed oeren pcrcent (.J.pprmcim.J.tely 95 op.J.ceo) eleven percent (157 parking spaces) . 3. Prepare revised Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and agreements for parking access, property maintenance, sewage, public utili ties and landscaping, reciprocal access easements and agreements, emergency vehicle access, drainage, fire hydrants and sprinkler systems to include the proposed buildings. 5. Submit a revised sign program for the shopping center in compliance with Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. 6. A lot line adjustment shall be recorded for the removal of existing lot lines located below any proposed buildings. 31A-23 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MA YOR PRO TEM Lisa B ist COUNCIL MEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Car/os Bustamante Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio 1m ~ 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-20l P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 (714) 667-2700. Fax (714) 973-1461 NO-rteeaeFntNTENT 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: Riverview West Starbuck/Restaurant Project Description: The proposed proj ect involves the construction of two restaurants. One of the restaurants is a Starbuck restaurant the other is unknown. In conjunction with the construction of the Starbuck restaurant, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow drive through window service. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a reduction in required parking for the two proposed restaurants. Project Location: 3770 West MacFadden Project Number: ER 2004-251 Public Review Period: 7-29-2005 to 8-17-2005 Hearing Date: 8-8-2005 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 8-17-2005. Please direct your comments to: Dan Bott, 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 Very Carvajal at (714) 667-2700. ~)t~24 cs. 606-2 Riverview Starbuck Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 2004-251 Proposed Project The proposed project involves the construction of two restaurants, a Starbuck coffee shop and spec restaurant building. In conjunction with the construction of the Starbuck restaurant, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow drive through window service. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a reduction in required parking for the two proposed restaurants. Setting The project sites are two building sites located within the ii-acre Riverview West Market Place near the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. The Riverview West Marketplace is an existing commercial center consisting of approximately 270,000 square feet of commercial retail area. The proposed Starbuck restaurant would be constructed between two existing restaurant pads along Harbor Boulevard. The other proposed restaurant would be constructed between two existing restaurant pads along Edinger Avenue. The project area is situated within surrounded by commercial retail and single family residential to the retail to the east and west. an urban setting and is a school to the north, south and commercial The project Specific Plan designation of site is located within the zoning district and has a General Commercial. North Harbor General Plan Project Description The proposed project involves the development of 1,750 square foot Starbucks restaurant with drive through window service. The other proposed restaurant would consist of 4,000 square feet of area and would be located along Edinger Avenue. 1 31A-25 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow for 157 parking space reduction to the existing center to allow for the construction of the two restaurants. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed project based on the City of Santa Ana CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by reference the analysis and findings provided in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where applicable, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts. I . AESTHETICS A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, 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? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within the North Harbor Specific Plan and subject to the specific plan design guidelines. The Specific Plan establishes design guidelines to guide the development of projects within the specific plan area. Through the City's site plan review process the proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the design guidelines in the North Harbor Specific Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not 2 31A-26 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? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is currently improved with existing on- street lighting. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the project area. II . AGRICULTURE A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use? B. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their loca tion or na ture, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agriculture use? No Impact According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not contain Unique Farmlands, Prime Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance. Based on the City's General Plan, the project site is not planned for agricultural uses. Additionally, the project site is not included within any existing Williamson Contracts. A site visit conducted by the City's Environmental Coordinator confirmed the project site is currently not in agriculture production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? 3 31A-27 Less Than Significant 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 and growth impacts beyond those identified in regional planning programs and/or local general plans. The proposed proj ect is consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the population and traffic growth projections in the General Plan. The proposed project would be considered to be consistent with the regional and local growth proj ections 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, and particulate matter. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified in Table AQ-l. Table AQ-l EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Project Pollutant Construction Tons/ Operations Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550 4 31A-28 Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.5 55 Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter 150 6.75 150 Long-term Operational Air Quality Impacts The primary source of long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be generated by vehicle travel to and from the proj ect site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity usage. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The long-term operational emissions generated by the proposed project are consistent with the alr pollutant emission projections within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in additional air pollutant emissions that would exceed air pollutant emission projections evaluated within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. Short-term constructed Related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants arising from construction of the proposed project would occur during the grading and excavation phases. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook as a guideline, the threshold for potentially significant short-term air quality impacts would involve the grading of 1,309,000 square feet of area. Assuming grading of the entire project site, approximately 6,000 square feet of area would be graded. The proposed gradlng would be conslderably less than the threshold of significance established by the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. To minimize dust impacts during construction, the proposed proj ect would be required to comply with SCAQMD Fugi ti ve Dust Rule 403 to suppress dust generated by construction operations. 5 31A-29 C. Resul t in a cumula ti vely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the non-attainment under an applicable ambient air quality standard? project region is federal or state Less Than Significant Impact The proposed proj ect 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 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold for potentially significant long-term or short-term air quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed 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 long-term operation of the proposed proj ect would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. Short-term construction operations could emit objectionable odors. However, they would be short-term and would not be considered significant. 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 6 31A-30 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 Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no sensi ti ve biological resources located on or within the nearby vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to any onsite sensitive biological resources. v. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact According to the Santa Ana Local Register of Structures and the Federal Register of Structures, there are no historically significant located on the project site. Historical Historical structures B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? 7 31A-31 D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known cultural resources on the project site. The project site is currently improved. The probability for the discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction operations would be low. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS A-l. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the proj ect site is not located within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faul t Zone for fault surface rupture hazard. The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or extend towards the project si te. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faul ting 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 wi thin an approximate 60-mile radius of the proj ect site. The Newport/Inglewood Fault located approximately 13 miles south from the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The project site could potentially be subj ect to a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of O. 30g from a magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Newport/Inglewood fault zone. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result significant damage to the proposed proj ect. However, the seismic risks at the proj ect site would not be considered significantly different from other areas in the southern 8 31A-32 California region. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a site-specific geologic study that addresses the seismic constraints on the project site and the building load requirements of the project. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the geologic study and 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 proj ect site is considered to have High to Very High potential for liquefaction hazard impacts. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical study that addresses the liquefaction constraints on the project site and the building load requirements of the project. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the site-specific geotechnical report and compliance with the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential liquefaction hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. A-4. Landslides No Impact The project area lS flat without any topographical relief. According to City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no landslide planes or slopes on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result ln adverse impacts in regards to landslides. 9 31A-33 B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the soil exposed. Construction operations for the proposed project would require the demolition, clearing, excavation, and grading of onsite soils. The uncovered soils on the project site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion impacts to a level considered less than significant, the project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES requirements for construction activity. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the proposed 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? Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the project site consists of Metz Loamy Sand Soils that have low shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated steel and high potential for corrosion of concrete. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would required to 10 31A-34 prepare a geotechnical report that address and identifies the geologic conditions on the project site, building load requirements of the project and design recommendations to ensure the geologic stability of the project. E. Where sewers are wastewater is the of septic tanks systems? not available for the disposal of soil capable of supporting the use or alternative wastewater disposal No Impact The project site is located within urban setting where sewer service is available. The proposed project would not require septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Create a significant hazard to environment through the routine disposal of hazardous materials? the public transport, or the use or B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transportation, handling or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials or waste or the emission of hazardous emissions. The long-term operation and construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as solvents, oils, and paints. However, the quantities would be minimal and would not pose a hazard to the public. 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 According to the Santa Ana Fire Department and the State 11 31A-35 Regional Water Quality Board the project site lS not a hazardous waste site. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an accident potential zone, clear zone or FAA Notification Area. Implementation of the proposed project would not pose a hazard to people working or residing within the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? I. Resulting an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or fOllowing,construction. E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? K. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? 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 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 or surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? 12 31A-36 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The City of Santa Ana is included within four watersheds, San Diego Creek, Santa Ana River, Talbert and Westminster. Each of these watershed areas are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the objectives, water quality standards and Best Management Practice requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The City of Santa Ana implements the goals, objectives and requirements of the Basin Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the City's Local Implementation Plan. The project sites storm water flows would be conveyed southerly along an underground storm drain along Harbor Boulevard to the Santa Ana River before ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified the mouth of the Santa Ana River at the Pacific Ocean as an impaired water body. Short-Term Construction Related Water Quality Impacts During construction operations there is the potential that surface water runoff could be degraded. If the degraded surface water runoff is conveyed into the local storm drain system, potential adverse water quality impacts could occur to downstream receiving waters. To minimize potential construction related water quality impacts, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan. Long Term Operational Water Quality Impacts The primary concern for water quality pollutants associated wi th the operation of the proposed proj ect would be from urban runoff. Urban runoff is defined as runoff that occurs during periods that are not usually associated with rainfall, and are most commonly produced from landscaping 13 31A-37 irrigation, leaking pipes, and water used to wash off surfaces tributary to the street. Since urban runoff usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Additionally, adverse water quality impacts could occur from rain events when sediment, grease and oil on roadways and parking lots are flushed into the local storm drain system. Currently, the project site does not contain any structural Best Management Practices, which would potentially decrease the amounts of pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Uncontrolled urban runoff generated from the proj ect site could result in adverse water quality impacts to downstream receiving waters. The proposed project involves the development of restaurant uses on the proj ect site. Commercial kitchens could potentially produce grease as a by-product of their operation. If not properly disposed of, the grease could potentially create blockage of sewer lines, which could result in damages to both public and private property and potentially resulting in adverse water quality impacts. Such impacts could potentially be in conflict with water quality standards established by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. To reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable Site Design structural Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that include the following: a. Site Assessment b. Site Design BMP's c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMP's d. Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all structural BMP's shall be provided. 14 31A-38 e. Selecting and sizing the Treatment Control BMP's f. Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMP's and to identify the entity in charge of implementation. . Prior to issuance of building permits, shall provide payment of the Federal Protection Enterprise Fee. the applicant Clean Water · Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project shall be fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Q. Have a potentially significant adverse ~pact on groundwater quality? 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 impervious surfaces and associated runoff? 15 31A-39 M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. Based on preliminary analysis of drainage conditions and facilities on the project site and surrounding area, the City's Public Works Department has indicated that it is feasible that existing drainage facilities within the project area would be able to adequately drain the proposed project. However, to help address cumulative drainage impacts in the project area, the proposed project would be subject to Drainage Assessment Fees. 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? H. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact According to the Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320256H, the project site is located within Flood Zone X and not subject to 100-year flood risks. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of flooding. IX. LAND USE/PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would not physically divide any established community, in that the project area is an existing commercial center and the proposed project involves the development of restaurant uses. The proposed project would be compatible with other existing land uses in the area. No adverse land use compatibility impacts 16 31A-40 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 permitted under the General Plan and conditionally permitted under the North Harbor Specific Plan. Except for the parking requirements, the proposed project is consistent with the site development standards established in the North Harbor Specific Plan. The proposed project is requesting approval of variance to reduce its required amount of parking. With approval of the variance the proposed project would be consistent with the North Harbor Specific Plan. 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 17 31A-41 Noise Standards The project site is located within the City of Santa Ana and subject to noise standards and guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana Noise Element is to "Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and minimize the adverse effects of currently-existing noise sources./I In accordance with the Noise Element, the City has adopted noise standards and guidelines for land use planning. These guidelines for exterior noise levels as presented in Table N-l. City Of Santa Ana Land Use Table N-l Land Use Guidelines For Exterior Noise Noise Level (dBA CNEL or Ldn) Desirable Max~um Acceptable Maximum Low Density 55 65 Residential Medium Density 60 65 Residential High Density 65 70 Residential Schools 60 70 Commercial, Office 65 75 Industrial 70 75 The City also regulates noise though Chapter 18, Article VI of the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance presents permissible noise intrusion levels and sets exterior and interior noise standards for different times of the day and night. Additionally, the Noise Ordinance recognizes that some forms of noise are required for urban development. Sectlon 18-314(e) of the Munlclpal Code NOlse Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and no construction activity any time on Sundays or federal holidays. A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general 18 31A-42 plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within an existing commercial center and is impacted with vehicle noise. The proposed project would be compatible with noise standards established in the General Plan. Additionally, the traffic generated by the proposed project would not significantly increase noise long-term levels within the project area. B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would require conventional construction equipment and building practices. No significant ground borne noise impacts or ground borne vibration impacts would be associated with the proposed project. However, construction activities and construction equipment staging operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. To minimize potential construction-related noise impacts to a level considered less than significant, the project would be required to comply with City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance would limit construction activity 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, and not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays. 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? . 19 31A-43 No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an area that is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly 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? No Impact The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and proposed within an existing commercial center. 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 The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, implementation of the 20 31A-44 proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police protection services over current levels of demand within the project area and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact The project site is included within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate project-specific demands for new school facilities. However, the proposed project would be subject to provide school impacts fees to help address cumulative impacts to school services in the School District. Parks, Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of restaurant uses. 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. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of restaurant uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for existing recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional recreation facilities. 21 31A-45 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the traffic projections within the Circulation Element. The Public Works Department has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant project-related traffic impacts or individually or cumulatively exceed any required level of service established by the City or by the County's Congestion Management Program. C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a single-story restaurant uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not result in any substantial safety risks related to aircraft traffic. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature Less Than Significant Impact Construction operations associated with the proposed project could result in a short-term increase of construction traffic volumes within the project area. However, the increased level of construction traffic is not expected to significantly increase vehicle or pedestrian hazards within the project area. 22 31A-46 E. Result in inadequate emergency access Less Than Significant Impact As part of the City's development review process, the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for potential impacts in regards to emergency access. The Fire Department has determined that adequate emergency access would be provided. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is requesting approval of a variance to reduce the required parking for the two restaurant uses. Based on the City's parking requirements a total of 1,479 parking spaces are required for the Riverview West Market place. In 1995 a seven percent parking reduction variance was approved for the Riverview West Market Place. The construction of the two restaurants would result in the loss of 34 parking spaces. With the loss of this parking the overall parking requirement for the center would be reduced by 11 percent. In order to analyze whether or not the existing amount of parking at the Riverview West Market Place would be adequate to support the proposed project, a parking analysis was prepared. The study uses the Urban Land Institute Shared parking Methodology to determine the availability of parking at various times of the day and evening. The analysis determined that sufficient on-site parking would be available to support the existing and proposed land uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result inadequate parking capacity. G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No Impact The proposed project would not be in conflict with any adopted policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of the proposed project 23 31A-47 would not displace existing public transportation facilities. XVI. UTILITIES A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments. Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana and/or the Orange County Sanitation District would provide wastewater service to the project site. The treatment of wastewater would be provided at Reclamation Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley. The proposed project would be required to provide appropriate sewer connection fees. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for additional wastewater facilities. C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within an area that is currently improved with drainage facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of surface water runoff generated from the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new drainage facilities that would impact the environment. D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 24 31A-48 Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for water service over current levels water demand within the project area. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Through the City's development review process, the Public Works Department has indicated that the City would have the ability to provide adequate water service to the project site. No adverse impacts in regards to the provision of adequate water service would be associated with the proposed project. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste disposal service for the proposed project. The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for solid waste disposal over current levels of demand within the project area. Additionally, the City has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which, contains programs to reduce the City's overall demand for solid waste disposal. No significant adverse impacts would be associated with providing solid waste disposal service for the proposed project. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No Impact 25 31A-49 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 proj ect' s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building code, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and applicable City Ordinances, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a restaurant use. The project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation measures have been required for the construction and operation of the proposed project to insure that the project would not have a direct or indirect adverse significant impact to human beings or the environment. XVIII DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. 26 31A-50 XVIV REFERENCES City of Santa Ana General Plan, September 1982 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No. 97071058, October 1997, Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines, 2001 Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, March 2004 National Register of Historical Resources City of Santa Ana Local List of Historical Resources California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320256H 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 Parking Study for Riverview West Marketplace, Douglas MacPherson, March 2005. XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator 27 31A-51 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Riverview Starbuck/Restaurant II. Project Numbers: ER 2004-251 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: 3770 West McFadden 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. J( Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -) pursuant to applicable 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 significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. ~~ Signature ~ ~\~150\\-- ') Printed Name Julv 26. 2005 Date db\Env Form CEQA Chklst 31A-52 Page 1 of 1 ~'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 Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics - Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 D D ~ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited D D 0 >r 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? D D D D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ~ in the area? D D D dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A-53 anfA 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 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: 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.) o o o o o o o o o K ~ << 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? dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A-54 o o o o o o o o ~ ~ fV << o o o o DnfA 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 ATTACHMENT 8 31A-55 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ o o o o o ~ ~ No Impact o ~ ~ 9( ~ Jf o o ~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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT 8 31A-56 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ o o j1 P< o J( o ~ o No Impact o o ~ o o t>( o ~ o K ~'A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT 8 31A-57 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o p( o Less Than Significant Impact t( fJ!( o o o o No Impact o o )( ~ o }{ ~fA 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 1 DO-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 1 DO-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 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 31A-58 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o ftf o o o P( ~ ~ D Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ o o o o o D D ~ No Impact o o D ~ ~ ~ o o o o anfA 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 o 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? dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst AT3Afl~~ 8 o o o P\ o ~ o % o o o % o ~ o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o ~ o o 2r o ~ p( ~'A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources XI Noise - Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. Population and Housing - Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHME~ 8 31A-6u Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact )( )r ;t fi( o o o o No Impact o o o o J1( ~ % ~ anlA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources XIII. 'Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation I Traffic db\Env Form CEQA Chklst A TT ACHMENI 8 31A-61 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact )( o o o o o ~ K No Impact o o o o o o o o ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A-62 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ ftf ~ )( ~ fl( ~ >( No Impact o o o o o o o o o anfA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 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 31A-63 o o Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o o )<Z Less Than Significant Impact ~ K o >( ~ o No Impact o o J{ o o KO - 8/24/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-21 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A DRIVE- THROUGH WINDOW AND APPROVING THE MODIFICATION OF VARIANCE NO. 1995-09 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3770 WEST MCFADDEN AVENUE 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. Applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 seeking to allow a drive-through window service and to modify Variance No. 1995-09 to allow the further reduction of parking spaces for the property located at 3770 West McFadden Avenue. B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 and the modification of Variance No. 1995-09 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing August 8,2005. C. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41.424.5 permits eating establishments with drive-through service with a conditional use permit. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. 1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community? The proposed Starbucks drive-through will contribute to the general well being of the area by providing a new restaurant with amenities available to both pedestrians and vehicles traveling along Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. 2. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The drive-through window service, in conjunction with the proposed conditions, will not be detrimental to the health, 31A-64 Resolution No. 2005-26 Page 1 of 5 safety or general welfare of persons working in the area. The circulation, design, and layout of the proposed drive- though lane has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts that may be generated as a result of the new drive- through lane. Conditions have been incorporated into the project to help minimize any adverse impacts that the project might generate as the result of its drive-through use. The project will be reviewed after ninety days, six months, one year and annually thereafter to ensure that the business is in compliance with conditions approved for the project. 3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The new restaurant with drive-through service, in conjunction with upgrades of landscaping and circulation, will provide both a visual upgrade and new economic activity for this area of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. The overall economic stability of the area will be strengthened with additional commercial services in the area. 4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code for such use? The proposed restaurant and drive-through window operation will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and design standards for drive-through facilities. The drive-through lane will meet the stacking lane requirement of 160 linear feet, as required by code. Except for the parking requirements, the proposed project is consistent with the site development standards established in the North Harbor Specific Plan. The proposed project is requesting approval of variance to reduce its required amount of parking. Should the variance be approved, the project will be consistent with the North Harbor Specific Plan. 5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The drive-through lane for Starbucks is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial as support commercial uses, including restaurants, are permitted by right. The project supports General Plan Land Use Policy Number 2.7, which promotes the rehabilitation of 31A-65 Resolution No. 2005-26 Page 2 of 5 commercial properties and encourages increased levels of capital investment. D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a Variance upon making certain findings. 1. 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 Riverview West Marketplace is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial development. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Douglas MacPherson, Traffic Engineer, 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 uses. 2. 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 owner's ability to provide new development within an underutilized shopping center. The proposed tenants will bring additional revenue and clientele to the existing shopping center and will not create any encumbrances to property rights. 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 proposed tenant pads are within an existing shopping center 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 both the drive-though 31A-66 Resolution No. 2005-26 Page 3 of 5 Starbucks and proposed sit-down restaurant are both in conformance with City development standards for commercial uses and are consistent with the General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-251 has been prepared for this project. The Negative Declaration was available for public review from July 29,2005 through August 17, 2005. The mitigation monitoring program is contained as a condition of approval. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana atter conducting the public hearing hereby approves for the property located at 3770 West McFadden Avenue: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 as conditioned in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth and 2. The modification of Variance No. 1995-09 as conditioned in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Staff report and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle(6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Leo (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Glenn Mondo Chairperson 31A-67 Resolution No. 2005-26 Page 4 of 5 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. 2005-26 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on August 8, 2005. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana 31A-68 Resolution No. 2005-26 Page 5 of 5 Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-21 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 the conditional use permit. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. A. Plannina Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 04-101. 2. Any amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division and Police Department for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the conditional use permit must be amended. 3. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-251 are incorporated as conditions of approval for this project. 4. The berm and proposed landscaping surrounding the drive-through lane must consist of mature landscaping that will adequately screen the drive-through lane. Exhibit A 31A-69 Conditions for Modification of Variance No. 1995-09 Modification to Variance No. 1995-09 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. Plannina Division TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND PARKING 1. Parking reduction may not exceed seven percent (approximately 95 spaces) eleven percent (157 parking spaces). (Modified by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) 2 On-site circulation is to be designed to accommodate WB-50 semi- trucks which will be making regular deliveries to this site. 3. Prepare revised Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and aareements for parkina access. property maintenance. sewaae. public utilities and landscapina. reciprocal access easements and aareements. emeraency vehicle access. drainaae. fire hYdrants and sprinkler systems to include the proposed buildinas. (Added by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) LANDSCAPING 4. Twenty-six 36 inch box trees are to be located at project entry points located along and near public rights-of-way; 5. All parking lot trees are to be a minimum of 24 inch box (in lieu of 15 gallon required by code); 6. No less than 40 four foot by four foot tree wells are to be located throughout the parking areas; Exhibit B Page 1 of7 31A-70 7. A palm tree theme (minimum 24 inch box) along pedestrian walkways and along the main drive aisle in front of Wal*mart and Buildings B through G is to be provided. a No less than 70 landscape planters with minimum dimensions of 8 1/2' x 18' are to be provided throughout the parking areas. 9. Submit a revised landscape plan to indicate the location and replacement of all dead or underdeveloped plants. trees. or aroundcover within the entire shoppina center. (Added by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) 10. A landscape treatment shall be provided alona the southerly wall abuttina sinale family dwellinas and submitted to the city for review and approval. (Added by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) PARKING AREAS 11. Cart corrals are to be provided and designed architecturally similar in materials, color and design to the buildings on the site. (Pipe rail equipment is not acceptable.) 12. All parking areas along the property perimeter with vehides facing Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue are to have the parking space decreased to 16 feet and the 15 foot landscape setback increased to 17 feet. This includes the following parking areas: south of Building J, east of Building L, between Buildings K and L, north of Wal*mart. SITE DESIGN 13. No doors or exits are permitted on the street side of Buildings J, K and L if there is a 15 foot minimum street setback. Should exits be necessary, each building must be set back an additional five feet allowing for a sidewalk to run parallel to each building for access. 14. There are to be no exposed downspouts, scupper drains, mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, plumbing or conduit on the outside of the building. SIGNAGE 15. The project entry trellis located on the comer is to be maintained free of any advertising or banners. Only the name of the center may be placed on this structure. Exhibit B Page 2 of7 31A-71 16. Submit a revised sian proaram for the shoppina center in compliance with Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. (Added by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 17. A lot line adiustment shall be recorded for the removal of existina lot lines located below any proposed buildinas. (Added by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2005) 18. Recyclable materials storage is to be provided on-site at a location to be approved by staff prior to permit issuance. 19. An A TM and postal station are to be provided in the project development. These may be integrated into any part of any building. The location of these facilities is to be resolved with staff prior to permit issuance. 21 No deliveries may occur for tenants other than Wal*mart before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; nor before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. Wal*mart truck deliveries shall be targeted to avoid these restricted delivery hours. Trucks arriving within these restricted times must take all measures necessary to minimize noise to adjacent residences. Under no circumstances shall Wal*mart trucks be parked with motors or refrigeration units in operation along the eastern edge of the WaJ*mart building between the restricted hours indicated above. Six months following the opening of the Wal*mart store the Planning Commission shall review the project and may at such time amend this condition to completely prohibit deliveries to Wal*mart during the same hours as apply to other businesses on the site, if the Planning Commission determines that such deliveries cause an unreasonable disturbance to nearby residences. Any such amendment of this condition may be appealed to the City Council. 21. The trash compactor located at the southwest comer at the southeast corner of Wal*mart (south side) shall not be operated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. every day. 22. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-251. 23. Project shall comply with conditions and requirements of site plan review DP No. 95-55R and DP No. 04-101. Exhibit B Page 3 of7 31A-72 LOADING ZONES 24. The loading docks of Buildings A-E are to be fully endosed so that there is no outdoor unloading activity and the trucks back up to a sealed lock area. 25. A maximum 12 foot high block wall to screen for noise and visual impacts must be constructed at the loading docks in order to protect the residential uses to the east and south of this property from noise and nuisance activity. Building G, H, and L Architecture 26. Project design is approved for Buildings G, H, and L in concept and are to be refined with staff prior to submittal into plan check. Should no resolution be achieved, these are to be brought back to Planning Commission for final approval. B. Public Works Aaencv Prior to site plan approval, complete the following: 1. Revise the site plan to note trash compactor locations proposed for Wal*mart are not final and shall be revised for the approval of Public Works Agency and Planning and Building Agency prior to approval of the Wal*mart building pennit. 2. Revise the site plan to note the raised Harbor Boulevard median and pocket and island shall be modified. 3 Revise the site plan to note the traffic signal of Harbor and McFadden will be modified and relocated. 4 Revise the site plan to note new street trees shall be planted on Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. 5. Revise the site plan to note all utilities shall be relocated to be no doser than 10 feet to any driveway. Prior to issuance of a building pennit, complete the following: 1. Pay cash payment of $5,000.00 towards future traffic signal installation at McFadden Avenue and Jackson Street. Exhibit B Page 4 of 7 31A-73 Prior to release of utilities, complete the following: 1. Dedicate a 25' X 25' comer cut-off at the comer of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue. 2 Dedicate a traffic signal easement at the McFadden Avenue main driveway entrance, as per approved traffic signal plans. 3 Dedicate two bus tum-outs area on McFadden Avenue, as per approved improvement plan. 4 Dedicate wheelchair ramps access at the signalized drive approach on McFadden Avenue, as per approved improvement plan. 5 The dedication deeds and easements must be prepared by the developer's engineer or licensed Land Surveyor and submitted to the Public Works Agency for checking. 6 Harbor Boulevard a) Modify the existing median island and pocket for south bound left turn into the project site per improvement plan. b) Construct right turn lane including curb, gutter, pavement and 10' wide sidewalk as per approved improvement plan. c) Construct a 35' radius curb return at the southeast comer of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue, including sidewalk, and wheelchair ramp per approved improvement plan. d) Relocate and modify traffic signal at intersection of McFadden Avenue and Harbor Boulevard as per approved traffic signal plan. e) Relocate utility boxes, poles and meters for new right hand turn lane, new 35' curb radius and new drive approaches. ~ Pave Harbor Boulevard to good edge of pavement, per approved improvement plan. g) Construct northerly drive approach per City Standard #1112, Case 2, (W=35', A=45', X=3') and per approved improvement plan. h) Construct southerly drive approach per City Standard #1112, Case 2 (W=32', A=42', X=3') and per approved improvement plan. Exhibit B Page 50f7 31A-74 i) Relocate pull box, Southern California Edison vault, all other utility boxes, utility poles and utility meters within 10' from the proposed drive approaches. j) Install pavement striping and signage as per approved channelization plan. k) Install "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" zone. I) Relocate power poles as per approved improvement plan. m) Construct and relocate ornamental street lights as per approved improvement plan. n) Close existing drive approaches with curb, gutter and full width sidewalk. 0) Construct street tree wells and plant minimum 24 inch box trees per City Standard #1124 at locations in accordance with approved improvement plans. 7. McFadden Avenue a) Construct signalized drive approach (W=56') and 25' curb radii with two wheelchair ramps per approved improvement plan. b) Construct drive approach near garden center per City Standard #1112, Case 2 (W=32', A=42', X=3') and per approved improvement plan. c) Construct most easterly drive approach per City Standard #1112, Case 2 (W=40', A=50', X=3') and per approved improvement plan. d) Remove existing sidewalk and construct new full width 10' wide sidewalk per approved improvement plan. e) Remove existing curb and gutter and construct new curb and gutter per approved improvement plan. f) Remove existing paving and construct new paving to street centerline per approved improvement plan. g) Construct new landscaped medians per approved improvement plan. Exhibit B Page 6of7 31A-75 h) Install new traffic signal at the main driveway entrance per approved traffic signal plans. i) Install pavement striping and signage as per approved channelization plan. j ) Install school crossing signs per approved improvement plan. k) Install "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" zone. 1) Close existing driveways with sidewalk curb and gutter. m) Construct two bus turnouts and 12' X 80' P.C.C. bus pad, as per approved improvement plan. (See Exhibit "A"). n) Construct street tree wells and plant all new minimum 24 inch box trees per City Standard #1124 at locations in accordance with approved improvement plans. 0) Furnish ornamental street lighting with underground service as directed by the City Engineer. C. Police Department 1 . The applicant shall provide/employ two uniformed state licensed security officer for the parking area. The officer shall be on duty anytime there are employees or patrons onsite. The applicant shall provide the officers with a form of transportation that will enable them to access all areas of the site quickly. The security officers employed by the applicant shall first be approved by the Chief of Police, or his designate, before Certificate of Occupancy is approved. 2. The Conditional Use Pennit 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. Exhibit B Page 7 of7 31A-76