HomeMy WebLinkAbout31A - 1701 E. FAIRHAVEN AVE.
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~~~.
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MARCH 6, 2006
TITLE:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-33
TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING CEMETERY AT 1701 EAST
FAIRHAVEN AVENUE - FAIRHAVEN
MEMOR~K'. APPLICANT
~ .f/Ja~
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
D As Recommended
D As Amended
D Ordinance on 15t Reading
D Ordinance on 2nd Reading
D Implementing Resolution
D Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2005-33 as conditioned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On February 13, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 2005-33 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Rodriguez absent) to
allow the expansion of the existing cemetery in the General Agricultural
(AI) zoning district at 1701 East Fairhaven Avenue (Exhibit A). The
Planning Commission added conditions relating to the potential addition
of olive trees to the landscape palette, the design of the mosaic niches,
the design of an entry water feature and standards for traffic control
for pedestrian crossings between the south garden and north garden across
Fairhaven Avenue during special services.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Jay
Exe tive Director
Planning & Building Agency
KH:rb
kh\fairhaven memorial park expansion\cupOS-33.cc
31A-1
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY FAIRHAVEN
MEMORIAL PARK FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2005-33 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING CEMETERY
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
o Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Karen Hal uza
--
~ ~~~~ 1I-f ~6e..- ... t~,~
Executive Director
K~L +-I0-t2~.L-vJ~
Planning MaKager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2005-28.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33 as
conditioned.
Prior Planning Commission Action
On January 23, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider this proposed project. During that meeting the Planning
Commission expressed concerns with the quality of the mausoleum
architecture, the seeming incongruity of the semi-private mausoleums and
pavilion building architecture with the community mausoleum, the quality
of the building materials and that they lack the sense of permanence
such a structure demands and that materials such as real stone would
provide. The Commission requested more detail on the community
mausoleum windows as the plans were not clear as to whether the windows
were faux or real. The Commission recommended that any spandrel glass
be replaced by granite niches or decorative ironwork. The Commission
also requested more detail about how the interior of the community
mausoleum would work and what the other elevations would look like.
The Commission also discussed the need for a signal, or other form of
protected pedestrian crossing, between the existing southern cemetery
and the proposed northern expansion. The Commission directed staff to
work with the applicant to answer these questions, work to improve the
building materials and architecture and provide further details. After
the public hearing was conducted, the Commission voted to continue the
item to the meeting of February 13, 2006.
EXHIBIT A
31A-2
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 2
Since that time the project architect, Mr. Barry Boudreaux of J. Stuart
Todd Architects, has worked to revise the plans to address the
Commissions' concerns. A floor plan for the mausoleum has been provided
that clarifies the location of the windows and shows that no spandrel
glass is proposed on any elevation. The stucco finish that appears on
certain portions of the community mausoleum has been changed from a sand
finish to a smooth plaster finish. The stone veneer has been changed
from cultured stone, to a real stone that will match that currently
found on the Waverley Church. Window niche details are clarified as
being surfaced with granite. The surface finishes of the Orange Blossom
Pavilion building have been changed to match the community mausoleum
building. Elevations for all sides of the community mausoleum have been
provided. The semi -pri vate mausoleums have been revised to eliminate
the terra cotta tile and replace it with granite.
The Planning Commission also discussed the need to provide for safe
pedestrian crossings between the existing south garden and the new north
garden. Given that the crossing location occurs mid-block less than 500
feet from a signalized intersection at Cambridge and Fairhaven, staff in
Public Works and Planning worked together to explore options that would
achieve a safe pedestrian crossing situation, but would not create a
conflict for drivers with the existing signal. Staff has identified two
options that could be used to achieve this goal.
Option 1
Crosswalk
Require A Traffic Signal And Fully-Improved pedestrian
The crossing between the south and the north garden constitutes a mid-
block crossing for purposes of pedestrian crosswalk design as it is not
located at the intersection of two streets, but rather consists of two
private driveways. Fairhaven Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the city
with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Creating a safe situation for a
pedestrian crossing at this location can only be achieved by the
addition of a full traffic signal and crosswalk improvements. The cost
for this improvement is estimated at $270,000 and would be the
responsibility of the applicant. If the Commission chooses this option,
the following draft language lS provided as a suggestion for a new
condition of approval:
"The proj ect shall include public improvements at the proposed
Fairhaven Avenue entrance including a traffic signal, access ramps,
sidewalk, and colored concrete paved crosswalks across all four
legs of the intersection, subject to the approval of the City
31A-3
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 3
Engineer. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant
shall: 1) Record legal documents for dedication of easements in
favor of the City of Santa Ana for the public improvements; 2)
Submi t for review and approval street improvement plans for all
work required to be constructed within the public right-of-way; 3)
Construct the public improvements to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer."
Option 2 - Require Traffic Control During Events Where Pedestrians Will
Cross From The South To The North Garden
Currently, the existing north garden does not have facilities for indoor
services, nor does it have a parking lot. Patrons who attend services
on the south side of Fairhaven must walk across the street to the
gravesites. With the construction of the new north garden there will be
on-site facilities for services, as well as on-site parking. This will
resul t in a significant reduction in the need for crossing from the
south to the north garden. The need to cross mid-block would occur
almost exclusively during larger burial services. During these events
the staff at Fairhaven Memorial Park would provide uniformed security
guards to provide traffic control and to direct pedestrians safely
across the street. This method of pedestrian and traffic control would
allow for full processions, as needed, and would provide the desired
effect of ceremony and respect for those attending the service. The
number of times during the week that traffic control is required for
pedestrian crossings at this location is relatively small compared to
the overall time that Fairhaven functions as a major thoroughfare. The
use of uniformed security guards could provide more than adequate safety
for pedestrians and motorists alike without the need for the
installation of a traffic signal that could cause potential conflicts
with the existing signal at Fairhaven and Cambridge, as well as being a
very costly improvement.
If the Commission wishes to choose this option, the following draft
language is provided as a suggestion for a new condition of approval:
"During events at Fairhaven Memorial Park, where guests will be
crossing Fairhaven Avenue, the staff of Fairhaven Memorial Park
shall provide uniformed security guards in a number sufficient to
achieve traffic control that will allow pedestrians to safely cross
Fairhaven Avenue. These uniformed security guards shall be present
during the entirety of the service in order to provide for safe
pedestrian crossing and to control and direct traffic as needed."
31A-4
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 4
The remainder of this staff report provides project details that were
presented at the January 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
Fairhaven Memorial Park and Mortuary is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the existing cemetery
operations to property owned by Fairhaven located directly across the
street on the north side of Fairhaven Avenue.
Property Description
The project site is an approximately eight-acre rectangular parcel
located immediately across the street from the existing Fairhaven
Memorial Park and Mortuary, and adjacent to Fairhaven's North Park
Expansion located on the northeast corner of Fairhaven Avenue and
Cambridge Street. The property is currently in agricultural use and is
under lease to a nursery operation. The site also contains an orange
grove, which is no longer actively cultivated.
Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north,
existing cemetery to the south, existing cemetery to the west and single
family residential houses to the east, including the Campbell House,
which will not be altered as part of this project (Exhibits 1 and 2) .
Project Description
The proj ect consists of the expansion of Fairhaven' s existing cemetery
operations. In addition to the creation of new grounds for single-depth
gravesites, the project also will include the construction of semi-
private mausoleums, family estate plots, a pavilion building for
services, a new community mausoleum, parking lot, artwork, water
features and extensive landscaping.
The project will be constructed in two phases with Phase I improvements
beginning immediately following project approval and Phase II
improvements by 2008. The following table details the improvements to
be constructed by phase.
31A-5
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 5
Phase I Phase II
· Landscaped grounds - 4.26 acres
· Landscaped grounds - 3.97 acres
. Community Mausoleum 3,024 sq. . Community Mausoleum 7,200 sq.
ft. ft.
. 3 Semi-Private Mausoleums 256 . Parking Lot - 33 spaces
sq. ft. ea.
. Pavilion Building - 1,604 sq. ft.
· Parking Lot - 22 spaces
Project Edges
The north project perimeter will include an existing row of mostly
mature Italian Cypress trees adjacent to an existing masonry block wall
that will be painted a uniform color on the cemetery side. In addition,
landscape pockets have been included that will allow for the growth of
mature trees at intervals along the northern border in order to create a
lush landscape edge and buffer for the single family homes to the north.
As part of its public outreach for the project, representatives of
Fairhaven Memorial Park held community meetings to describe the project
to the adjacent residents. At these meetings, the residents expressed
their desire to retain the existing mature Italian Cypresses and to not
have their existing masonry wall disturbed.
The western project perimeter adjoins the existing Fairhaven North
Garden constructed in the early 1990s. The existing chain link fence
will be removed and the new cemetery property will be completely
integrated with the existing North Garden including the continuation of
the existing road which will provide a secondary entrance to the
property from Cambridge Street.
The southern perimeter of the proj ect, adj acent to Fairhaven Avenue,
will retain the existing London Plane street trees and replace as
necessary. The perimeter fencing will be a continuation of the North
Garden fencing that features open wrought iron with decorative masonry
pilasters. A 35-foot landscape setback will be included for the
maj ori ty of the proj ect frontage providing a thick landscape edge to
soften the mausoleum buildings proposed for this location. The primary
entry for the project will be located off of Fairhaven Avenue and will
include a decorative colored concrete band at the entrance apron. The
entry also will include a linear water feature leading to a decorative
roundabout intersection feature, which will include a sculpture at its
center.
31A-6
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 6
Pedestrian Circulation
There is currently no sidewalk along the south side of Fairhaven Avenue
immediately adj acent to the existing cemetery. Guests who park in the
parking lot on the main cemetery property to attend internment services
for gravesites in the North Garden across the street must walk west
along the landscape setback area to the intersection of Cambridge Street
and Fairhaven Avenue and then cross at the signalized intersection. The
proj ect will add a new sidewalk adj acent to the curb along Fairhaven
Avenue, which will tie in to the existing sidewalk that begins at the
intersection of Cambridge Street. Although the majority of the parking
for most services will be accommodated within the expanded North Garden
itself, for services which occur within the Waverley Chapel some guests
may choose to park on the south side parking lot and walk across the
street to the gravesi te. The new sidewalk will provide for adequate
pedestrian circulation and safe direction to the crosswalk and
signalized intersection.
Mausoleum Architecture
When completed, the new community mausoleum will extend for
approximately 520 feet along Fairhaven Avenue. The constraints of
mausoleum architecture, much of which is mandated through State
regulations, present a design challenge. The architect for this
project, J. Stuart Todd, has endeavored to meet the strict demands
required to design this most permanent type of building, while at the
same time providing a pleasing fa9ade along Fairhaven Avenue. Designed
to playoff of the architectural elements of the Waverley Chapel, the
mausoleum fa9ade will be articulated with a peaked roofline at
intervals, extensive use of stone cladding, faux windows, mosaic niches,
and decorative wrought iron gates. The building will be set back 35
feet from Fairhaven Avenue and will be further softened by a variety of
24-inch box trees throughout the setback.
Parking
The Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC Sec. 41-1411) requires one parking
space for each 35 square feet of floor area in seating areas without
fixed seats for chapels, such as the pavilion building. This results in
the need for 45 parking spaces. The project provides 55 spaces, as well
as the ability to park on the internal circulation road as is common in
cemeteries.
31A-7
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 7
Analysis of the Issues
Originally established in 1911 by Mr . Oliver Halsell, the Fairhaven
Memorial Park and Mortuary is one of the oldest and most respected
cemeteries in Orange County. Its original mausoleum, built in 1916, was
one of the first constructed in California. Since its initial founding,
the cemetery has continued to expand its property holdings and the
services it provides including the construction of additional mausoleum
space. The subject property has been owned by Fairhaven since
approximately 1956 and has long been planned for use as an expansion
site for the cemetery. This expansion is being requested so that the
cemetery may continue its mission of providing "caring and dedicated
funeral planning and a lasting memorial in an environment of warmth and
beauty."
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of Open Space, which anticipates cemetery uses. The
proposed construction of approximately 12,596 square feet of mausoleum
and chapel space is well below the amount of square footage that could
be constructed on the site per the Open Space FAR of 0.2. The property,
zoned General Agriculture (AI), allows cemeteries, mausoleums and
crematories as conditionally permitted uses within the Al zoning
district (SAMC Sec. 41-201.5). The proposed project meets or exceeds
all of the City's development standards.
Chief among the issues to be considered with the proposed expansion was
the need for the project to be sensitively integrated into the urbanized
environment that has developed around it. With the existing cemetery to
the south providing a pleasing mature landscape edge along Fairhaven and
the existing single family homes to the north, it was important that the
new cemetery be planned in such a way as to be an enhancement to the
area. The 35 - foot landscape setback along the maj ori ty of Fairhaven
Avenue , extensive use of landscaping throughout the interior of the
project and especially along the northern perimeter, the decorative
entry along Fairhaven Avenue and the inclusion of a new sidewalk all
serve to sensitively integrate this project into its existing setting.
Public Outreach
On August 29, 2005 representatives of Fairhaven Memorial Park hosted a
communi ty meeting to discuss the proposed proj ect with the homeowners
adjacent to the property on the north. Those who attended were
31A-8
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
February 13, 2006
Page 8
generally supportive of the project and had questions primarily relating
to clean-up of the existing site and preservation of landscape views.
Fairhaven representatives also met individually with homeowners who
requested additional information.
The Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2006 was the subject of a
regularly noticed public hearing with publication of the meeting notice
appearing in the Orange County Reporter newspaper and mailed to all
property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project.
Summary and Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2005-28 and
adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33 as
conditioned to allow the expansion of the existing cemetery.
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Environmental
Review No. 2005-28 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 3). This
document was released for public review on December 22, 2006 with a
Notice of Intent being published in the Orange County Register. The
review period closed on January 20, 2006. As of the writing of this
staff report, no comments had been received on the Mi tigated Negative
Declaration.
The analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration determined
that the proj ect would not result in any impacts that could not be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
///11 C... I I~
f--- c.,w'-<./V l , ( ".v--.-__
Karen Haluza, AICP
Planning Manager
KH:jm
kh,\fairhaven memorial park expansion\cupOS-33.021306.pc
31A-9
c
~
~
R1
I
:F~:==~':==~~~~
" " II " "--
" " II "
" " II I,
L'.,J(_ _\\..;1
1,'-// ---__-_- ----~......\'/?
,," A1 ,',I
I," ,'"
,,'I " II
'I II " II
'I II ,'II
,," " II
~ ~ :.. ---=-=-=-=-=- ~ ~ -:. ':J
R1
Rl 1
I B:~:VST l ~
I R1 r'
ASPEN ST
R1
R1
Al
-B
C-SM
Cl
Cl-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
COMM. COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST' VILLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
o
9
\
1 A1
-,Z
------
R1
R4
>
<
:=
w
w
a:
LL
II>
II>
60-A1-7200
>
<(
~ RE
(/)
::>
>-
4165:..--...-..36
o
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
Rl
R2
R3
R4
RE
SD
SP
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE
MUL TIPLE-FAMIL Y RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
1m
~~
CUP 05-33
FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION
1701 EAST FAIRHAVEN AVENUE
IA
#{'
1" = 1000 FEET
p
L
A
N
N
N
G
A
N
- = 500 FEET
D 8 U L
EXHIBIT 1
31A-10
D
N
G
A
G
E
N
c
y
,...; >- ,...;
>- -' >- >- -' In
,...; -,-' ,...; >- -' >- -' In :::: <( -' -'
:::: <( - :::: ~~ :::.'! - <( 0
::;;:: In In 0 ::; ;:: ::; -
<( <: > <( <: ...J <( <: <( <: Z "- ~ 0 51 GLE FAM L Y
"- lJJ 0
"-lJJ ...J "-lJJ ...J "- lJJ "-lJJ 0 lJJ~ lJJ ~
lJJ~ II: lJJ~ W lJJ ~ lJJ~ :!; ==
~ W == J: -' CI) -' CI) W
~ > (CllJJ (CllJJ (CllJJ C) 51 GLE FAM L Y
<:rt: <:rt: In 0 <:rt: <: rt:
Cii < Cii 0 <:rt: <:rt: a: Cii Cii 0
== II: Cii Cii a:
ALBION AVENUE
t ;::
l- I- <:
w T I A
-' W W
<( II: W c:: .
;::
<: l- II: '"
lJJ In I- lJJ 0
Cl In rt: . .
Cii >- . ,
lJJ >- >- 0
rt: rt: ::;;::
>- lJJ <( <: ::;
-' ....
:E w lJJ P R 0 J E C T 5 I T E Cl <(
i1 C) ::; -,CI)
lJJ
lJJ 0 <.l (CllJJ lJJ -
-' a: <: rt: -' u
(Cl lD - < (Cl
<: :!; CI) z
Cii > ;;;
< <
0 0
FAIRHAVEN AVENUE
'"
rt: Y
<( C E M E T E R
Q.
lJJ
::;
0
:I:
lJJ
-'
co
0
::;
1m
~~...~
CUP 05-33
FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION
1701 EAST FAIRHAVEN AVENUE
A
.gy
P LAN N
N G
AND
B U
L D
N G
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
31A-11
~
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MA YOR PRO TEM
Lisa B ist
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Claudia C. Alvarez
Carlos Bustamante
Alberta D. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
~
CITY OF SANTA ANA
~
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
-
Joseph W. Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patricia E. Healy
\ \
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 667-2700. Fax (714) 973-1461
www.santa-ana.org
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a
Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Title: Fairhaven Memorial Park Expansion
Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to
expand Fairhaven Memorial Park Cemetery
Project Location: 1701 Fairhaven Avenue
Project Number: ER-2005-28
Public Review Period: 12/22/2005 to 01/20/2006
Hearing Date:
1/23/2006
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 01/20/2006. 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 Karen
Haluza at (714) 667-2700.
RHCB\/notice\er
CUP 05-33
3~~~~
CS.6Q6.2
INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FAIRHA VEN MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION
ER-2005-28
Prepared
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
December 2005
31A-,.13
FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ER 2005-28
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a request for a conditional use
permit to expand Fairhaven Memorial Park Cemetery.
SETTING
The project site consists of approximately 8-acres and is
located in the northeastern portion of the City of Santa
Ana, Orange County, California. As shown on Exhibit 1,
local access to the project site is provided from Cambridge
Street and Fairhaven Avenue. Regional access to the project
site is provided from State Route 22 via the Tustin Avenue
exit.
The project site currently exists has an orange grove and a
storage area for boxed palm trees. The project site is
situated within urbanized setting and is surrounded by
single-family residential neighborhoods to the north, west
and eastl and a portion of the existing Fairhaven Memorial
Park to the south. An existing single family residence
owned by Fairhaven Memorial Park is located at the
southwest corner of the project site.
The General Plan designation for the project site is Open
Space. The Open Space designation applies to parks, water
channels, cemeteries and other open space uses. The zoning
for the project site is Agriculture. Under the Agriculture
designation, cemeteries are conditionally permitted.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves an expansion of the Fairhaven
Memorial Park Cemetery on the project site. The proposed
project consists of two phases of improvements.
Phase 1
The Phase 1 improvements would involve the development of
three 256-square foot mausoleum buildings at the
northeaster corner of the project site. The mausoleum
buildings would be used for the internment of remains.
1
31~14
FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ER 2005-28
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a request for a conditional use
permit to expand Fairhaven Memorial Park Cemetery.
SETTING
The project site consists of 10.58-acres and is located in
the northeastern portion of the City of Santa Ana, Orange
County, California. As shown on Exhibit 1, local access to
the project site is provided from Cambridge Street and
Fairhaven Avenue. Regional access to the project site is
provided from State Route 22 via the Tustin Avenue exit.
The project site currently exists has an orange grove and a
storage area for boxed palm trees. The project site is
situated within urbanized setting and is surrounded by
single-family residential neighborhoods to the north, west
and east, and a portion of the existing Fairhaven Memorial
Park to the south. An existing single family residence
owned by Fairhaven Memorial Park is located at the
southwest corner of the project site.
The General Plan designation for the project site is Open
Space. The Open Space designation applies to parks, water
channels, cemeteries and other open space uses. The zoning
for the project site is Agriculture. Under the Agriculture
designation, cemeteries are conditionally permitted.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves an expansion of the Fairhaven
Memorial Park Cemetery on the project site. The proposed
project consists of two phases of improvements.
Phase 1
The Phase 1 improvements would involve the development of
three 256-square foot mausoleum buildings at the
northeaster corner of the project site. The mausoleum
buildings would be used for the internment of remains.
1
31~15
"
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
31A.,.16
Near the northern boundary of the project site, a 1,604-
square foot pavilion building would be developed. The
pavilion building would be used for committal services and
inurnments.
Along the southern boundary of the project site, near
Fairhaven Avenue, a 3,024-square foot mausoleum building
would be developed. Additionally garden area around the
building would be used for single depth graves.
Phase 2
The Phase 2 improvements involve the construction of six
1,200 square foot mausoleum buildings and garden lawn
areas. Within the Phase 2 area the existing single family
residence would be retained.
A site plan of the proposed project is available for review
at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division.
CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
The construction operations would involve clearing of
existing orange trees, removal of boxed palm trees and site
grading to construct building pads, and access ways.
Approximately, 5,000 cubic yards of soil would be graded.
All grading would be balanced on site. Local drainage would
be collected onsite and discharged into the public storm
system.
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 FEIR (SCH 97071058) .
Additionally, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and
an Agriculture Land Evaluation has been incorporated into
the environmental analysis.
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 to a level
considered less than significant.
2
31~17
I. AESTHETICS
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
B.
Damage scenic resources,
trees, rock outpourings
a State highway?
including but not limited to
and historic buildings within
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is currently in agriculture use. While the
project site is not considered a scenic vista, it does
provide open space relief within the urbanized setting of
the project area. Implementation of the proposed project
would remove the agriculture resources on the project site
to allow for the expansion of the memorial park cemetery.
Even though the project site would be developed with
cemetery land uses, the project site would still reflect an
open space garden like setting and would continue to
provide open space relief within the project area.
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surrounding?
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana has an adopted Urban Design Element
that establishes policies, programs and design elements to
enhance the aesthetic environment of the City. Development
projects proposed in the City are reviewed for consistency
with the Urban Design Element. The design elements that are
relevant to the project site include; Design District.
Design District
According to the City's Urban Design Element, the project
site is located within the Cabrillo Design District. The
Urban Design Element establishes goals and policies to help
guide the design of development projects proposed within a
Design District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a
Design District should exhibit high quality design and
should incorporate design elements that are proportional
and aesthetically related to the district setting.
The proposed project has included architectural and
landscape treatments to compliment the existing aesthetic
environment. Through the City's site plan review process
3
31~18
the design of the proposed project was determined to be in
compliance with the intent of the district design element.
Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade
the existing visual character of the Cabrillo Design
District setting.
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 Far.mland, Unique Far.mland or Far.mland 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 location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of
Far.mland, to non-agriculture use?
Less Than Significant Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site
is designated as potential Prime Farmlands. To determine
the significance of the agricultural resources on the
project site, the California Department of Conservation
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) was prepared.
The LESA is a point-based analysis that rates the value of
agricultural land resources. The rating is determined by
measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land
Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent
soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural
suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes
factors that are intended to measure social, economic and
geographic factors that also contribute to the overall
value of agricultural land.
4
31A,.19
Land Evaluation
The LESA includes two Land Evaluation factors that are
separately rated, the Land Capability Classification
Rating, and the Storie Index Rating.
The Land Capability Classification Rates the suitability of
soils for most crops. Soils are rated from Class I to Class
VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving
the highest rating of Class I. The Storie Index provides a
numeric rating of the relative degree of suitability of a
given soil type for intensive agriculture.
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR,
the soils on the project site are San Emigdio Series. The
San Emigdio Series soils are a Class I Soil that has high
suitability for the intensive agriculture of most crops.
Site Assessment
The LESA includes four Site Assessment factors that are
separately rated. These factors include project site size,
water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands
and protected resource lands.
Due to the project site's limited size and limited amounts
of surrounding agricultural lands and lack of protected
agricultural resource lands within the vicinity of the
project site, the Site Assessment rating of the project
site was low. However the project site did receive a high
rating for water resource availability.
Scoring
A single Land Evaluation and Site Assessment score is
generated after all of the factors have been scored. The
final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points,
with a maximum of 50 points to be generated from the Land
Evaluation and a maximum of 50 points generated from the
Site Assessment factors. Table AG-1 identifies the Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment thresholds to determine the
significance of agricultural land resources.
5
31~20
Table AG-1
Land Evaluation/Site Assessment Scoring Thresholds
Total Scoring Scoring Decision
0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant
40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only
if Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment subscores are each
greater than or equal to 20
points
60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless
either Land Evaluation or
Site Assessment subs core is
less than 20 points
80 to 100 Points Considered Significant
Project Determination
Table AG-2 indicates that the project site was determined
to have final LESA Score of 65. Based on the thresholds
identified in Table AG-1, the agricultural resources on the
project site are not considered significant because the
Site Assessment factor is less than 20 points. Therefore,
the implementation of the proposed project would not result
in the loss of any prime or unique agriculture lands.
Table AG-2
Final LESA Score sheet
Factor Name Factor Factor Weighted
Rating Weighting Factor Rating
LAND EVALUATION
Land Capability 100 .25 25
Classification
Storie Index Rating 100 .25 25
SITE ASSESSMENT
Project Size 0 .15 0
Water Resource 100 .15 15
Availability
Surrounding 0 .15 0
Agricultural Lands
Protected Resource 0 .15 0
Lands
TOTAL 65
6
31A,.,21
III. AIR QUALITY
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management
Plan?
No Impact
The project site is located within the South Coast Air
Basin and subject to the requirements of the Clear Air Act
at both the Federal and State level, as implemented by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District. The South
Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary
planning document to monitor if air quality standards and
objectives are being achieved in the South Coast Air Basin.
The air quality objectives in the AQMP are based upon
population and growth projections provided in regional
planning programs and local general plans. A project could
be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population
and growth impacts beyond those identified in regional
planning programs and/or local general plans.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the
population and traffic growth proj ections in the General
Plan 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality
pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. Pollutants for
which ambient standards have been set are referred to as
criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants include Ozone
(03), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (N02), Sulfur
Dioxide (S02), and Particulate Matter (PM10). 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 criteria pollutant thresholds identified in the
Table A-I.
7
311A1"T22
Table A-1
EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Project
Pollutant Construction Tons/ Operations
Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day
Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550
Reactive Organic
Compounds 75 2.5 55
Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55
Particulate
Matter 150 6.75 150
Long-term Operational Air Quality Impacts
The primary source of long-term operational emissions
associated with the proposed project would be generated by
vehicle travel to and from the 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 would be
consistent with the air pollutant emissions projected
within the General Plan Land Use Element FEIR.
Short-term constructed Related Air Quality Impacts
Construction operations for the proposed project would
involve the grading of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of
soil and a limited amount of building construction. Given
the minimal amount of grading and construction activity,
less than significant construction related air quality
impacts are expected. However, dust generated from
construction operations could be a nuisance to nearby land
uses. To minimize dust impacts during construction, the
proposed project would be subject SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule
403. To insure compliance with Fugitive Dust Rule 403 the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure
· Grading plans and construction plans for the proposed
project shall reflect the following notes:
8
3tA~23
1. All material excavated or graded will be
sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts
of dust.
2. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease
during period of high winds (winds greater than
25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1
or Stage 2 smog episodes.
3. Streets surrounding the proj ect site should be
cleaned at the end of each day of construction.
4. All material transported offsite shall either be
sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
5. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good
condition and in proper tune according to
manufacturer's specifications.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed 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. The proposed project is consistent with
the General Plan and the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan and therefore would not result in significant
cumulative air quality impacts.
D. Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact
9
31Ar,24
Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the
South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold for
potentially significant long-term, short-term or cumulative
air quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed proj ect would not expose sensi ti ve receptors to
any substantial concentrations of air quality pollutants.
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
The operation of the proposed proj ect would not generate
significant objectionable odors to the public. During
construction operations some obj ectionable odors could be
emitted from construction equipment. However, the potential
odor impacts 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
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
According to
site
the
is situated within an
California Department of
urban
Fish
setting.
and Game
10
31A,.25
Natural Diversity Data Base and the City's Updated General
Plan Land Use Element FEIR, there are no .sensitive
biological resources located on or within the nearby
vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in any adverse
impacts to any 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 City of Santa Ana Local Register of
Historical Structures and the Federal Register of Historical
Structures, there are no historically significant structures
located on the project site.
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?
D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of for.mal cemeteries.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR
there are no known cultural resources on the project site.
However, the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR
indicates that the City of Santa Ana has a probability for
the discovery of unknown cultural resources. The project
site is vacant, there is the potential that unknown
cultural resources could be present.
Mitigation Measure
. In the event unknown cultural resources are
encountered during construction operations, all
construction activity near the finding shall halt and
the City's Environmental Coordinator shall be
contacted for appropriate action.
11
31A,.26
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
A-1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No 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
faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life
of the proposed project would be considered low.
A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is situated within a highly active seismic
region of southern California. A total of 38 active faults
have been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius
of the proj ect site. The Newport/Inglewood Fault located
approximately 13 miles south from the City of Santa Ana has
the potential to result in an earthquake at a magnitude of
6.9. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result
significant damage to the proposed proj ect. However, the
seismic risks at the project site would not be considered
significantly different from other areas in the southern
California region. Through the City's development review
process, the proposed project would be required to prepare
a geotechnical report that identifies the seismic
constraints on the project site and geotechnical
recommendations to reduce potential seismic hazard impacts
to a level that would be 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
12
31A,27
known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths
shallower than about 50-feet.
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR,
the project site is considered to have a 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 geotechnical report that
identifies the liquefaction constraints on the project site
and geotechnical recommendations to reduce potential
liquefaction impacts to a level that would be less than
significant.
A-4. Landslides
No Impact
The project area is flat without any topographical relief.
According to City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR,
there are no landslide pl'anes or slopes on the project
si te. Therefore, implementation of the proj ect would not
result in adverse impacts in regards to landslides.
B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
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.
Even though the proposed proj ect would involve a limited
amount of grading, uncovered soils on the project site
could result in erosion impacts to nearby drainage
facilities. The erosion impacts could potentially increase
during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion impacts
to a level that would be less than significant, the
proposed project would be required to prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan and obtain a General Construction
Activity Storm Water Permit.
Mitigation Measure
13
31-A'T28
. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the proj ect
applicant shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit that
includes:
a.
A copy of the
State Water
identifies the
project's permit
Resource Control
permit number.
issued by
Board
the
that
b.
Two copies of
Prevention Plan
the
Storm
Water
Pollution
C. Would the proj ect result in the loss of a unique
geological feature?
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR
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
The City's Land Use Element FEIR provides a general
classification of soil conditions in the City. According to
the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR the proj ect
site consists of Omni Series Soils that have high
shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of
uncoated steel and moderate potential for corrosion of
concrete. The soil conditions on the project site would not
provide a significant constraint to the geologic stability
of the project site. Through the City's development review
process, a construction-level geotechnical report would be
required to evaluate site specific soil conditions on the
project site. Design recommendations from the report would
be incorporated into the project to insure the geotechnical
stability of the project.
14
31A-r29
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
The following analysis is based on a Limited Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site
by Rincon Consultants in November of 2005. The report is
presented in its entirety in Appendix A.
A. Create a significant hazard to
environment through the routine
disposal of hazardous materials?
the public
transport,
or the
use or
Less Than Significant Impact
Setting
The Fairhaven Memorial project site is currently and
historically been used for agriculture purposes. There is
the potential the residual pesticides and metals could be
present in the soils. These potential contaminates could
pose a hazard to workers if not properly disposed of or if
contained in surface water runoff could result in adverse
water quality impacts.
A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared to
determine the presence of residual pesticides and metals in
the soil. A total of eight borings were conducted on the
project site at depths ranging from 0.5-feet to 3-feet
below grade. A total of 40 soil samples were collected. The
soil samples were tested for pesticides in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081A and for
metals by EPA method 6010B and 7471A.
Pesticides
The EPA has developed risk-based Preliminary Remediation
Goals for various pollutants in soil. Preliminary
15
31A.,30
Remediation Goals are used to screen pollutants in
environmental media, to trigger further investigation and
to provide initial clean up goals. Different Preliminary
Remediation Goals are established for residential and
industrial properties, with stricter standards being
applied for residential uses.
Varying levels of pesticides were detected in the soil
samples collected on the project site. However, based on
the US EPA criteria, none of the samples with detected
levels of pesticides exceeded the Preliminary Remediation
Goal for industrial or residential uses.
The State of California Department of Toxic and Substance
Control (DTSC) also have threshold levels for various
pollutants in soil. The total threshold limit concentration
and soluble threshold limit concentration are used to
determine whether excavated soil would be classified as a
hazardous or nonhazardous waste for disposal purposes. The
detected concentrations of pesticides in the soil samples
collected on the project site were analyzed for pesticides
and compared to the total threshold limit concentration
thresholds established by the DTSC. None of the detected
concentrations of pesticides exceeded their respective
total threshold limit concentration nor were high enough to
require further analysis.
Metals
Varying concentrations of metals were detected in the soil
samples collected and analyzed for metals. Both arsenic and
lead were identified to have elevated levels in the soil
samples collected. The Preliminary Remediation Goals for
residential and industrial settings for arsenic are 0.062
and 0.25 mgjkg. Background concentrations of arsenic found
in the Eastern United States soils (non-contaminated sites)
range from 0.10 to 97 mgjkg. The USEPA do not require
cleanup below natural background levels. All of the
analyzed soil samples detected arsenic concentrations above
the Preliminary Remediation Goals for residential and
industrial settings and all of the detected concentrations
are within the range of naturally occurring background and
concentrations for arsenic.
Additionally, the levels of metals detected were compared
to total threshold limit concentration levels established
by the DTSC. The total threshold limit concentration was
16
31A731
used to determine whether excavated soil would be
classified as a hazardous or non-hazardous waste for
disposal purposes. Lead was detected in the collected soil
sample at a level that required additional analysis. The
subsequent analysis identified non-detect levels of soluble
lead. Metal concentrations detected for all of the other
samples analyzed for metals did not exceed their respective
total threshold limit concentration and were not high
enough to require additional analysis.
B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-
quarter mile of an exi~ting or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact
The construction and operation of the proposed proj ect
would not result in activities that would emit hazardous
emissions or acutely hazardous materials.
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 Regional Water Quality Control Board the project
site is not identified as a hazardous material/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
The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne
Airport. According to the John Wayne Airport Environs
Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, the project site
is not within an accidental potential zone or crash
hazard zone.
17
31A.,.32
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?
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 project site is located within the Santa Ana River
Watershed and drains into the San Diego Creek Sub-Watershed
and the Lower Santa Ana River Sub-Watershed. The regulation
of water quality within the watershed is 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
18
31A.,33
Basin Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the
City's Local Implementation Plan.
The project site drains to the west and east. Westerly from
the project site, the storm water flows would drain through
a series of underground storm drains along Lincoln Avenue,
Santa Clara Avenue and Grand Avenue to the Santa Ana Open
Storm Drain Channel before ultimately draining into the
Lower Newport Back Bay.
Easterly from the project site, the storm water flows would
drain through an underground storm drain along Cabrillo
Park Drive before ultimately draining into the Lower
Newport Back Bay.
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has
identified Lower Newport Back Bay as impaired water body.
The primary concern for water quality pollutants associated
with the operation of the proposed project 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
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/grease,
metals and sediment. Additionally, fertilizers and other
chemicals used for the maintenance of landscaped areas on
the cemetery could be contained in the urban runoff. These
pollutants could have an adverse water quality impacts on
downstream receiving waters.
During construction operations there is the potential that
surface water runoff could be degraded, if 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, long-term operational impacts and cumulative water
quality impacts associated with the proposed project, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
19
31A~34
Mitigation Measure
.
Prior to issuance of grading permits,
applicant shall prepare a Water Quality
plan that include the following;
the project
Management
a. Site Assessment
b. Site Design BMPs
c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMPs
d. Selecting and sizing the Treatment Control BMPs
e. Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation
and maintenance of all structural BMPs will be
provided.
f. Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the
long-term operation and maintenance requirements
of all applicable structural BMPs and to
identify the entity in charge of implementation
. Prior to issuance of grading permits the project
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 issuance of grading
applicant shall provide payment
Water Protection Enterprise Fee.
permits the project
for the Federal Clean
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 impact on
groundwater quality?
No Impact
Construction operations for the proposed project would not
require de-watering activities. 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. The short-term
construction operations and long-term operation of the
20
3 ~A.,3 5
proposed project would not have any adverse impact on
groundwater supplies.
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?
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 a preliminary
analysis of drainage conditions and facilities on the
project site and the 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. To
address cumulative drainage impacts within the project area
the proposed project would be subject to Drainage Area
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
21
3"~6
The City of Santa Ana is a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The published Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the project site is included
on Community Panel No. 0602320278H. The project site is
located entirely in Zone X, which is defined as areas
beyond the limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood.
Implementation of the proposed project would not
significantly increase the potential for flood risks.
IX. LAND USE/PLANNING
A. Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would function as a continuation of
the existing use located immediately south and west of the
project site. The existing residential uses adjacent to the
project site would be buffered from the proposed project
with a combination of landscape and wall treatments.
Additionally, the existing residential use located on the
project site has been incorporated into the overall design
and would not be adversely impacted by the long-term
operation of the project. The proposed project would not
physically divide any established community and no adverse
land use compatibility impacts would be associated with
implementation of the proposed project.
B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact
The General Plan designation for the project site is Open
Space. Under the Open Space designation, cemetery uses
would be a compatible land use. The zoning for the project
site is Agriculture. Under the Agriculture designation,
cemeteries are conditionally permitted. Implementation of
the proposed project would not be in conflict with any
adopted planning programs or policies.
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community plan?
No Impact
22
31~a7
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR,
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 FEIR
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
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 the Municipal Code Noise
Ordinance.
General Plan Noise Element
The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana Noise Element
is to "Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the
community and to minimize the adverse effects of currently-
existing noise sources." 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-1.
City Of Santa Ana
Land Use
Table N-1
Land Use Guidelines For Exterior Noise
Noise Level (dBA CNEL or Ldn)
Desirable Maximum Acceptable
Maximum
Low Density
55
65
23
31A738
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
60
65
High Density
Residential
Schools
Commercial, Office
Industrial
65
70
60
65
70
70
75
75
As shown above the General Plan does not have any exterior
noise standards for cemeteries.
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance
The City regulates stationary noise impacts on residential
uses though Chapter 18, Article VI of the Municipal Code
Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance presents permissible
noise intrusion levels and sets an exterior standard of 55
dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50
dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These
standards are not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of
30 minutes in any hour. However, greater noise levels are
permissible for shorter durations.
The City also sets interior noise standards from noise
impacts emitted from stationary sources. Section 18-313 of
the Municipal Code Noise Ordinancet "Interior Noise
Standards" sets allowable interior noise levels of 55 dBA
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Note that
this equates to an interior CNEL of 56.0 dBA.) These
standards are not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of
more than 5 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 5 dBA
for a cumulative period of 1 minute in any hour.
The Municipal Code Noise Ordinance also recognizes that
some forms of noise are required for urban development and
maintenance and are difficult to control. Section 18-
314(e) of the Municipal Code Noise 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. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction activity
Sundays or federal holidays.
24
31A,,39
Threshold of Significance
A significant impact would occur when a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels of 3db or greater occurs when the
existing CNEL is 65dB or greater. Additionally, a
significant impact could occur when the stationary noise
source of a project or the construction operations of a
project is in conflict with the City's Noise Ordinance.
A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies.
c. A substantial per.manent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
Less Than Significant Impact
Project Area Ambient Noise Level Increases
The greatest potential to increase existing ambient noise
levels within the project area would be from vehicle
traffic generated by the proposed project. Typically a 3 dB
increase to the existing ambient noise level would occur
when there is a doubling of traffic volumes within a
project area. Based on the City of Santa Ana Master
Environmental Assessment the proposed project would
generate an average of 53 vehicle trips per day. This
amount of vehicle trips would have less than a significant
impact on existing ambient noise levels within the project
area.
Stationary Noise Impacts
Given the nature of the proposed use, the proposed project
would introduce a limited amount of new sources of
stationary noises onto the project site. Any stationary
noise sources on the project site would have to comply with
the City's Noise Ordinance.
B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.
Less Than Significant Impact
25
31A~O
Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion
of the earth. Vibration can be either natural as in the
form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves,
landslides, etc. or man-made as from explosions, the action
of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trucks or
trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be
continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient
as from an explosion.
The proposed project would not involve any construction
activity that would generate vibration impacts. The
proposed project would involve conventional construction
equipment and would result in less than significant ground
borne vibration impacts.
D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without project.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project has the potential to generate noise
impacts during project construction. Construction-related
noise impacts would largely be associated with noise from
the use of construction equipment and construction
activity.
Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during
the construction of the proposed project. First, the
transport of workers and import of construction materials
to the site would incrementally increase noise levels along
local access roads. However, the volume of traffic
generated by the construction operations would be minimal
to add measurably to the existing noise levels along major
access routes. Therefore, even though there could be a
relatively high single event noise exposure potentially
associated with passing trucks, the increase in ambient
noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a
24-hour period and construction-related impacts associated
with vehicle travel would not result in a significant noise
impact.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to
noise generated from construction equipment and activities.
Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which
has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own
noise characteristics. These various sequential phases
26
31A.,.41
would change the character of the noise generated on the
site and, thereforer the noise levels surrounding the site
as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the
type and size of construction equipment, similarities in
the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow
construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work
phase. Table N-4 identifies estimated noise levels for the
various construction phases of the project. The nearest
noise sensitive uses within the project area are the
existing single family land uses that abut the project
site.
Table N-4
Typical Noise Level at Construction Sites
Construction Phase Minimum Required All Applicable
Equipment in Use equipment In Use
Excavation 79 89
Foundation 78 78
Construction
Building Construction 76 85
Finishing/Site 76 89
cleanup
Construction of the proposed project would not involve the
use of large quantities of construction equipment. Grading
for the site would be minimal because of the flat condition
of the project site. Using a worst case distance of 50-feet
from the property lines of the nearest noise sensitive uses
to the center of construction activities, and not
accounting for the 6 foot perimeter wall around the
northern boundary of the project site, noise levels could
intermittently range from 78-89 dBA Leq at the nearest
noise sensitive land uses.
The Municipal Code Noise Ordinance recognizes that some
forms of noise are required for urban development and
maintenance and are difficult to control. Section 18-314(e)
exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair,
remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said
activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no construction
activity permitted Sundays or federal holidays. While
adverse, construction, when performed in compliance with
the requirements of the Municipal Code is considered to be
less than significant. While construction related noise
impacts are exempt under the Municipal Code Noise
27
31A.,.42
Ordinance, the construction activities would still have the
potential to create nuisance noise at adjacent and nearby
land uses and should be reduced as much possible. To ensure
compliance the requirements of the Municipal Code Noise
Ordinance and to minimize short-term construction noise
impacts the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measures
. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed
project shall note "Construction activities on the
project site shall only take place between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and
no construction activity shall take place on Sundays
or federal holidays".
. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed
project shall note "No construction equipment on the
project site shall operate including warming up until
after 7:00 a.m.
. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed
project shall note "All construction equipment shall
be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise
emissions and all equipment shall be fitted with
properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers".
. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed
project shall note "Stockpiling and vehicle staging
areas shall be located away from existing residential
uses".
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use
Plan, the project site is not located within an area that
is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not expose
people within the project area to significant aircraft
noise impacts.
28
31A,.43
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.
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.
Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impacts
The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police
protection services for the proposed project. According to
the Santa Ana Police Department, implementation of the
proposed project would not significantly increase the
demand for 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.
29
31A":'44
Schools: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is included within the boundaries of the
Orange Unified School District. Implementation of the
proposed project would not directly generate project-
specific demands for new school facilities. However, the
project would be subject to provide school impacts fees to
help address cumulative impacts to school services in
Orange Unified School District. The payment of fees to the
district would mitigate impacts on school services to a
level considered less than significant.
Parks, Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant
Impact
The proposed project involves the expansion of the memorial
park cemetery. 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.
No Impact
The proposed project involves an expansion to an existing
memorial park cemetery. Implementation of the proposed
project would not increase the demands for existing
recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional
recreation facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system?
30
31A,.45
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General
Plan and the traffic projections within the Circulation
Element. The Public Works Department has determined that
implementation of the proposed project would not result in
significant project-related traffic impacts or individually
or cumulatively exceed any required level of service
established by the City or by the County's Congestion
Management Program.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact
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.
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.
31
31A~6
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity
Less Than Significant Impact
The City's parking standards require a total of 45 parking
spaces. The proposed project is providing a total of 48
parking spaces. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in 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
would not displace existing public transportation
facilities.
XVI. UTILITIES
A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
B. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
E. Result in the deter.mination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana and 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 is consistent with the City's General
Plan and therefore would be consistent with the City/s
Urban Water Management Plan. The wastewater demands of the
project are accounted for in the Urban Water Management
32
31A,47
Plan. The proposed project would not significantly increase
the demand for wastewater service over current levels
wastewater demand within the project area. Through the
City's development review process, the Public Works
Department has indicated that the City would have the
ability to provide adequate waste water service to the
project site. The proposed project would be required to
provide appropriate sewer connection fees with the City of
Santa Ana and the Orange County Sanitation District.
No adverse impacts in regards to the provision of adequate
wastewater service would be associated with the proposed
project.
c. Require or result in the construction of new stor.m
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant effects.
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an urbanized area with
improved drainage facilities. Implementation of the
proposed project would not significantly increase the
amount of surface water runoff generated from the project
site. Implementation of the proposed project would not
require the construction of new drainage facilities that
would impact the environment.
D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
and the water demands for the project are accounted for the
in 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
per.mitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
33
31A748
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, establishes 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.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Implementation of the proposed project would not
substantially reduce the habitat of fish, wildlife species,
or known cultural resources in that no fish, wildlife
populations or known cultural resources are known to exist
on the project site. Mitigation has been incorporated into
the project to avoid potential impacts to unknown cultural
resources that might 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
34
31A749
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 project would not have any direct or indirect adverse
impacts on human beings. Mitigation measures have been
required for the construction and operation of the proposed
project to insure that the project would not have a direct
or indirect adverse significant impact to human beings or
the environment.
XVIII DETERMINATION
Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record
documented in the above environmental evaluation and cited
references, I find that the proposed project could not have
a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared.
XVIV REFERENCES
City of Santa Ana General Plan, September 1982
City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No.
97071058, October 1997,
City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998
City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance
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, November
2005
35
31A,.50
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
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
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Rincon
Consultants, November 2005.
XX. PREPARERS
Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator
36
31A,51
City of Santa Ana
Initial Study
I. Project Title: Fairhaven Memorial Park Expansion
III.
II. Project Numbers: ER 205-148
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: 1701 Fairhaven
Environmental Determination
A. D
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
B. ~
C. 0
D. D
E. D
F. D
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
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.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do
not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR
shall be prepared.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the 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.
December 16. 2005
Date
dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst
31A"162
Page 1 of 1
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 0 ~ 0
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 ~ 0
to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings
within a state highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character )if
or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views f<
in the area? 0 0 0
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
3tAn53
Page 1 of 9
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.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
t(
A
o
o
D
III. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
B.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Contract?
C.
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
A.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or
Congestion Management Plan?
B.
Violate any stationary source air quality standard
or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
C.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emission which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
D.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
31A7~4
D
D
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
~
~
~
D
D
D
Page 2 of 9
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?
dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst
31A7"PS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
P(
~
Less Than
Significant
Impact
f(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
D
M
x
)(
f(
jgi
D
D
Page 3 of9
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
31A7;56
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
~
o
o
o
o
o
x
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
~
%
o
o
o
f
o
No
Impact
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
k
o
f(
Page 4 of9
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
31A7S 7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
~
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
M
~
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
D
D
k
)(
D
~
Page 5 of9
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 OD-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
31A'7S8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
~
D
D
D
~
t(
ti
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
~
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
No
Impact
o
o
o
K
~
p(
o
o
o
o
Page 6 of 9
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
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
A
Physically divide an established community?
B
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
31A7S9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
~
~
~
D
t(
%-
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
p(
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Jr
Y<
Page 7 of 9
X. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
A.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
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?
dblEnv Form CEOA Chklst
31A,60
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
jA(
K
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
)(
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
1\
9(
~
Page 8 of 9
C.
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
XIII. Public Services
A.
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public service:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. Recreation
A.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
B.
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. Transportation I Traffic
A.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (Le. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion
at intersections?)
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
31A"161
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
o
o
o
o
o
ft(
~
9(
P(
No
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
Page 9 of9
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?
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?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
31A.,62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
9(
D
P<
~
~
D
~
)(
~
~
~
No
Impact
D
j;(
D
D
D
)5(
D
D
D
D
D
Page 10 of 9
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
31Ar63
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
,R
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
J?1-
D
~
x
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Page 11 of 9
[-
~
r--
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
790 East Santa Clara Street
Ventura, California 93001
805 641 1000
FAX 641 1072
i nfo@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
r-
November 14,2005
Project 05-20290
~
I~
l .
Marla Noel
Fairhaven Memorial Park & Mortuary
1702 Fairhaven Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
I '
!
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property
Fairhaven Memorial
Santa Ana, California
Dear Ms. Noel,
This report presents the results of a Limited Phase IT environmental site assessment (ESA)
conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. at the 8-Acre Fairhaven Memorial Site in Santa Ana,
California. The Limited Phase II ESA was performed in accordance with our proposal dated
September 19, 2005.
Thank you for selecting Rincon for this project. If you have any questions or if we can be of
any future assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
.---' ,
Bart Templeman
Associate Environmental Scientist
Figures/Tables/Appendices:
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Sample Location Map
Table 1 - Soil Analytical Testing Summary - Pesticides
Table 2 - Soil Analytical Testing Summary - Metals
Appendix 1 - Laboratory Analytical Reports
Environmental
S c j e n~j1A165
Planners
Engineers
f~
~
r-
~
n
[
~J
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a limited Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) that
was performed at the Fairhaven Memorial Park & Morturary site located at Cambridge Avenue
and Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, California. The purpose ofthe site assessment was to
determine if soil at the subject property has been affected by historical agricultural use associated
with the site.
On October 17, 2005, eight hand auger borings (HAl through HAS) were advanced on the
subject property. The hand auger borings were advanced to 3 feet below grade. Five soil
samples were collected from each boring at depths of 0.5, 1, 1.5,2 and 3 feet below grade.
Varying concentrations of pesticides were detected in the soil samples collected and analyzed for
pesticides. None ofthe detected pesticides exceeded Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) or
Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLe) thresholds established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) or the State of California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC).
,,,~
V arying concentrations of metals were detected in the soil samples collected and analyzed for
metals. The PRGs for residential and industrial settings for arsenic are 0.062 and 0.25 mg/kg,
respectively. Background concentrations of arsenic found in western United States soils (non-
contaminated sites) range from 0.10 to 97 mg/kg (Shacklette and Boerngen, Element
Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Contermil1ous United States, USGS,
1984). The USEP A states that generally they do not require cleanup below natural background
levels. In light of this fact and in our experience, regulatory agencies typically consider the use
of local or regional background concentrations as the threshold concentration for requiring
further investigation or remediation. All of the analyzed soil samples detected arsenic
concentrations above the PRGs for residential and industrial settings and all of the detected
concentrations are within the range of naturally occurring background concentrations for arsenic
in western United States soils.
--'
The levels of the other metals identified in the soil samples collected from the subject property
were within the published background ranges for metals in California soils. In addition, the
levels of metals detected were compared to total threshold limit concentration levels established
by the DTSC. The TTLC is used to determine whether excavated soil would be classified as a
hazardous or non-hazardous waste for disposal purposes. STLC and TTLC levels for metals are
listed in Table 2. Lead was detected in the 0.5-foot sample from boring HA-6 at a level that
warranted soluble (STLC) analysis. The additional STLC analysis revealed non-detect levels of
soluble lead. Metal concentrations detected for all of the other samples analyzed for metals did
not exceed their respective TTLC levels and were not high enough to warrant soluble (STLC)
analysis.
Based on the results ofthis limited Phase II assessment, no further assessment is recommended.
r
Rincon Consultants
31A,.66
[
r~'
~
r'
[j
[
[l
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a limited Phase II environmental site assessment conducted by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Fairhaven Memorial Park & Morturary at the 8-acre
property located at Cambridge A venue and Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, California. The
limited Phase II ESA was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated September
19,2005.
The following sections provide an overview ofthe project history; describe the purpose and
scope of the project, the physical setting, and sampling and analytical testing methodologies;
provide the results of the sampling and testing program; and provide conclusions and
recommendations.
PROJECT HISTORY
c...j
According to Marla Noel, representative for Fairhaven Memorial, the property has been
historically developed with orange groves. The site is currently in agricultural use and leased to a
palm tree grower. The current expansion ofthe cemetery includes redeveloping the site as part of
the cemetery. According to Ms. Noel, the City of Santa Ana has requested a limited Phase II
environmental site assessment to assess the 8-acre site. Based on the historical agricultural use
of the site, the City of Santa Ana has requested that a limited Phase II ESA be performed to
assess the site for potential pesticides and metals typically associated with agricultural use.
I~
I
-.,
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
- ~
The purpose of the limited Phase II ESA was to determine if soil at the subject property has been
affected by historical agricultural use.
Our scope of work included the following:
. Complete 8 borings on the property. The soil borings were advanced using a hand auger.
-,
--l
,
. Collect samples at 0.5, 1, 1.5,2, and 3 feet below grade in each boring. Initially the 0.5
and 1 foot deep samples were analyzed for chlorinated pesticides by EP A method 8081A
and Title 22 metals by EP A method 601 OB. The remaining samples were held for further
analysis depending on the results ofthe initial sampling.
. Analyze the 0.5 foot deep sample from boring HA-6 for soluble lead.
. Prepare an assessment report documenting the sampling and testing program.
.J
oJ
J
,..
Rincon Consultants
31Ai67
f'
f'
f'
r'
r~
[
[1
[;
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
a-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
TOlJof.[ralJhv
The current USGS topographic map (Orange Quadrangle 1981) indicates that the site is situated
at an elevation of about 190 feet above mean sea level with topography sloping slightly to the
southwest.
Site Geology
According to the Geologic Map of Orange County (Miller, 1981), the site is underlain by
alluvium and colluvium. The USDA soil survey for this area (Soil Survey, Orange County and
Western Riverside County, 1978) indicates that the soil types present in the site vicinity are
primarily San Emigdio series soils. San Emigdio series consists of well-drained soils on flood
plains and alluvial fans that formed in mixed alluvium.
Regional Groundwater Occurrence and Duality
'-~'"l
According to the Orange County Water District Groundwater Contour Map (November 1994),
groundwater in the vicinity of the site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. This
corresponds to a depth of 140 feet below grade. A review of the State of California Geotracker
website shows depth to water in this area to be approximately 110 feet below grade.
METHODOLOGY
HAND AUGER SAMPLING
Eight hand auger borings were advanced at the locations shown in Figure 2. The borings were
advanced to a maximum depth of 3 feet below grade. Five soil samples were collected from each
boring at depths of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,2 and 3 feet below grade. A total of 40 soil samples were
collected during this assessment.
The borings were advanced using a 4-inch diameter, stainless-steel hand auger. At the
designated sampling depth, a soil sample was collected directly from the hand auger and put into
a 4 ounce glass jar. Samples were labeled and stored in a cooler with blue ice pending delivery
to the analytical laboratory. The borings were backfilled with the cuttings. The sampling
equipment was decontaminated between uses by washing with a non-phosphate solution
followed by a potable water rinse.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
The soil samples were transported to American Scientific Laboratories of Los Angeles,
California under chain-of-custody documentation. Initially, 16 soil samples (from depths of 0.5
and 1 foot below grade) were tested for chlorinated pesticides by EP A Method 8081 A and for
Title 22 metals by EP A method 6010B and 7471A. Soil samples from 1.5,2, and 3 feet below
,..
Rincon Consultants
31A-r68
~
~
r-'
L
n
r
[
r"
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
grade were placed on hold pending analytical results from the 0.5 and 1 foot samples. Following
the initial analysis, the 0.5-foot sample from boring HA-6 was analyzed for soluble lead by EPA
method 6010B.
RESULTS
SOIL SAMPLING
No soil discoloration was noted for the soil samples collected. Soil was comprised primarily of
light brown, dry, loos~ silty sand at the surface, becoming dense silty sand at 3 feet below grade.
No groundwater was encountered in the borings.
A summary of the soil analytical testing program is included in Tables 1 and 2. Copies of the
laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix 1. The pesticides Chlordane, 4,4 DDE,
and 4,4 DDT were detected at varying concentrations in the soil samples collected from 0.5 and 1
feet below grade. Varying concentrations of metals were detected in the soil samples collected
from 0.5 and 1 feet below grade.
DISCUSSION
This section provides a discussion of the significance of the reported site contaminant
concentrations relative to published thresholds. To evaluate the significance of the reported
contaminant levels in the soil samples collected from beneath the subject property, we compared
these levels to threshold levels established by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the State of Cali fomi a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
"
-,
Pesticides in Soil: The USEP A has developed risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals
(pRGs) for various pollutants in soil (USEP A Region IX, Preliminary Remediation Goals Tables,
2004). PRGs can be used to screen pollutants in environniental media, trigger further
investigation, and provide an initial cleanup goal. PRGs consider exposure to pollutants by
means of ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation, but do not consider impact to groundwate~.
PRGs have been developed for both industrial and residential sites. Residential and industrial '
PRGs for pesticides are listed in Table 1. Pesticides were detected at varying concentrations in
the soil samples collected and analyzed for pestic~des (Table 1). The detected concentrations of
pesticides were all below their respective PRGs for residential properties and substantially less
than their respective PRGs for industrial properties.
~j
J
Varying levels of the pesticides 4,4'-DDE (ND to 8.311lg/kg), 4,4'-DDT (ND to 30.3 Ilg/kg),
and Chlordane (ND to 68.8 Ilg/kg) were detected in the soil samples collected and analyzed for
pesticides. Table 1 provides a comparison of the concentrations of pesticides detected at the site
with their respective PRGs for residential and industrial sites. Based on the USEP A criteria,
none ofthe samples with detected levels of pesticides exceeded their respective PRGs for
residential or industrial soils.
r
Rincon Consultants
31tA,.69
,~
~
,--
r:
[:
r:
r-:
r~
[-'
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
The State of California DTSC has also developed threshold levels for various pollutants in soil.
The total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) and soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC)
are used to determine whether excavated soil would be classified as a hazardous or non-
hazardous waste for disposal purposes. The detected concentrations of pesticides in the soil
samples collected and analyzed for pesticides were compared to the TTLC thresholds established
by the DTSC. None of the detected concentrations of pesticides exceeded their respective
TTLCs nor were high enough to warrant soluble (STLC) analysis.
Metals in Soil: Varying concentrations of metals were detected in the soil samples collected and
analyzed for metals. The PRGs for residential and industrial settings for arsenic are 0.062 and
0.25 mg/kg, respectively. Background concentrations of arsenic found in western United States
soils (non-contaminated sites) range from 0.10 to 97 mg/kg (Shacklette and Boerngen, Element
Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States, USGS,
1984). The USEP A states that generally they do not require cleanup below natural background
levels. In light of this fact and in our experience, regulatory agencies typically consider the use
of local or regional background concentrations as the threshold concentration for requiring
further investigation or remediation. All of the analyzed soil samples detected arsenic
concentrations above the PRGs for residential and industrial settings and all of the detected
concentrations are within the range of naturally occurring background concentrations for arsenic
in western United States soils.
In addition, the levels of metals detected were compared to total threshold limit concentration
levels established by the DTSC. The TTLC is used to determine whether excavated soil would
be classified as a hazardous or non-hazardous waste for disposal purposes. STLC and TTLC
levels for metals are listed in Table 2. Lead was detected in the O.5-foot sample from boring HA-
6 at a level that warranted soluble (STLC) analysis. The additional STLC analysis revealed non-
detect levels of soluble lead. Metal concentrations detected for all of the other samples analyzed
for metals did not exceed their respective TTLC levels and were not high enough to warrant
soluble (STLC) analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the soil sampling and analysis for this Phase II ESA, the following has been concluded:
. The levels of pesticides detected in soil samples collected from the subject property do not
exceed PRG or TTLC thresholds established by the USEP A and DTSC.
· The levels of metals identified in the soil samples collected from the subject property were
within the published background ranges for metals in western United States soils.
· Lead was detected in the 0.5-foot samples collected from boring HA-6 at a level that
warranted soluble (STLC) analysis. The additional STLC analysis revealed non-detect levels
of soluble lead in that soil sample. Detected levels of metals in the other soil samples did not
exceed PRG or TTLC thresholds established by the USEP A and DTSC.
-'
r
Rincon Consultants
351 A "77 0
fi
r
r'
11
f'-'
_1
n
n
r'
[u:
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
8-Acre Property, Fairhaven Memorial, Santa Ana, California
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this limited Phase II ESA, no further assessment is recommended.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for and is intended for the exclusive use ofFairhaven Park &
Mortuary. The contents of this report should not be relied upon by any other party without the
written consent of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Our conclusions regarding the site are based on the results of a limited subsurface sampling
program. The results of this evaluation are qualified by the fact that only limited sampling and
analytical testing was conducted during this assessment.
This scope was not intended to completely establish the quantities and distribution of
contaminants present at the site or to determine the cost to remediate the site. The concentrations
of contaminants measured at any given location may not be representative of conditions at other
locations. Further, conditions may change at any particular location as a function of time in
response to natural conditions, chemical reactions and other events. Conclusions regarding the
condition of the site do not represent a warranty that all areas within the site are similar to those
sampled.
,.j:
r
Rincon Consultants
3 \Ai71
~
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Fairhave Memorial, Santa Ana, California
~
1"
~
n
n
n
r-'
-,
[
l-l
117051.000. W
fl
.5
WGS84 117050.000' VV
1 MILE
,
........
. .
. .
. . . . . . . .'
Site Boundary
I
Isource: USGS 1981
-'
E9
Vicinity Map
NORTH
Figure 1
Rincon Consultants
~
r
31AJ2
-
I
I
o
o
'<:t
r'
o
o
C\l
(j)
~
.!;;
<Il
ro
()
III
.$
ell
E
'x
e
0.
0.
ell
"
[
o
r'
[
r;
[,
~
CO
"'0
C
:::I
o
CO
>-
t
Q)
c..
e
a...
......
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
......1
31A713
c..
Ctl
~
c
o
+:J
Ctl
U
o
-'
L...
Q)
0>
:J
<!:
"'0
C
Ctl
I
C\l
CD
.....
~
.Q>
LL
Ctl
Ctl.-
.- C
..... .....
o 0
E~
Q) Ctl
~O
c Ctl
Q) c
~<!:
.cCtl
..... ......
Ctl c
LLCtl
(f)
c
o
:z::;
CO
U
o
....J
0>
C
.C
o
CO
I...
Q)
0>
:::I
<(
"'0
C
CO
I
~
"l"'"
<C
J:
~
r'
[
r:
n
Table 1 - Analytical Testing Summary - Pesticides
[;
.-.~
Sample Depth Pesticides (ug/kg)
Designation (feet) 4,4'-000 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Chlordane
HA1 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1 ND 8.31 ND ND
HA2 0.5 ND ND ND 5.08
1 ND ND ND ND
HA3 0.5 ND ND 12.3 7.59
1 ND ND ND ND
HA4 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1 ND ND ND ND
HAS 0.5 ND ND 30.3 68.8
1 ND ND 25 36.5
HA6 0.5 ND ND ND 7.91
1 ND ND ND 11.68
HA7 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1 ND ND ND ND
HAS 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1 ND ND ND ND
Detection Limit 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
USEPA PRG-Residential 2,400 1,700 1,700 1,600
USEPA PRG-Industrial 10,000 7,000 7,000 6,500
STLC 100 100 100 250
TTLC 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,500
r-:
ND - not detected
J..Ig/kg - micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion)
USEPA PRG - United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Preliminary Remediation Goal for residential
and industrial sites (October 2004)
STLC - Soluble threshold limit concentration
TTLC.c Total threshold limit concentration
Analysis: Pesticides - EPA Method 8081A (see attached laboratory report for complete listing of pesticides)
_i
17
31A.,.74
r'
r
r~
r'
r] .!!!
ctI
-
Q)
:E
U 0:::
()
()
"-
.....
I
[' ~
ctI
-, E
E
[-' ::J
CJ)
0)
.-, c
:;:;
III
Q)
....
iU
0
:;:;
>.
iU
c
<(
N
~
.0
ctI
....
I .
I
00 0
'<l:~ 1"-1"- I"-C") C")LO I'-: ell 00 0
U ~~ ..- o 0::> 00 0
c col!:i 'N C") ..- CON COCO LOLO oq
C") ..- ..-'<t rom 0::> C") d
N co co 0) co "-0::> ..- ..- "-0::> LO'<t LO LO ciN . C")
LON 0
.,-
E
.~ C") co "1-,,: ~Lq '<t~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ O'<t 00 0
u ~cci OLO 0
ro 0) 0 I"- C") NO) 0) 0 ..- co C").,- 0) .,- ~N '<t.LO "!.
C N .,- NC") NN C\f ..-N NN NN .,- N 0 N I"-
ro
>
E
~ 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 ON I"-
ro ZZ zz ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ Z Z ~I"- o . co
0 I"-LO
J::.
I-
iD 0 00 0
00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
.?: zz zz z ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ Z LOLO o 0) .,-
en ci LOC") LO
E
.~ LO'<t C")'<t ..- LO 0) O)'<t C")'<t N'<t .,-co LO 0 00 0
0
c 0) 0) I'-:~ ell 1"-1"- LOO::> I'-:~ co I"- ell I'-: I'-: ~..- o 0) .,-
Cl) cici 00 0 cici cici 00 cici 00 0 0 .,- C") ..0
Qj
(J)
Qj 00 0
C") C")O) '<t co coO) N 0::> coco 1"-0::> o)N N 00 0
~ cici <i ~o . C") I"- . ~o 0) . '<l: 00 q
.~ C") C") C") . .0 .0 ~N o co
Z .,- .,- .,- ..- ..- .,- .,- ..- 0) 0) ..- ..- .,- 0) .,- 0) 0 N~ 0
N
q .0 d ..- ..- LO ..- '<to::> l"- N O'<t O::>N .,-co '<t 00 00 0
>- 0
~ (5 ~ 1"-0) ~ ~ I'-:~ ~ ~ z~ I'-:~ I'-:~ ~ LOLO 00) .,-
g :2: 0 cici 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 ciC") LO.C") ..0
E C")
E ~
ro ~ 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 OLO 0 ON o C") 0
g ~ Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z ZZ ZZ z~ Z N . NN ..-
.Q Cl) 0 ciO C")
",:i:: :2:
_ L-
~ ~ "0 co ..- ~ .,- '<l: LO~ ..- ~ '<t<< ~o::> NCO I"- LO 00 0
ro ~ 0) LO .LO '<t ~LO gLO
0 .,- .,- '0 0) "-cO LO . co . LO
:2: '" Cl) l!:i 0)..- <i .,-1"- <io::> cO I"-
....J 0) .,- .,- N N NLO 0 . .,-
0:: ~ ..-
00 L- 00
0= Cl) ~ ~ C! ~ '<l: 0::>..- I'-: I'-: ell~ ..- C") O'<t ..- 0 0
a. LOO 00
1"-= a. LO C") ..- 0) 0 l!:ir-..: 0 '<t co I"- ~,.--.: C""iC""i C") ~ NLC:!. ..-q
..- E a .,- .,- N ..- N ..- ..- N ..- ..- .,- N..- ..- ..- ..- 0 N C'"i'~
.~ 0
"'-
- ro N co 0::> 0 C") 0 0 l"- I"- C") 0::> OCO co C") co 0 00 0
~ 0 0
'" .0 '<l: co ~ C! ~ I"- C") ~ ell ~ co '<t..- co co ~ LO 00 0).
Cl) a LO l!:i I"- 0::> I"- cO cO I"- '<t LO l!:i COCO l!:i l!:i LO ci 0::> ~O)
0:: 0 .,-
E < 0
~ 0 LO
'E '<t .,- C") 0::> N 0 LO ..- 0) co 0) .,- '<t .,- '<t 0) 0 co N 0 0
~ '<l: <i ci ..- ~ C! ~ ~ cO ..- I'-: ~ '<l: '<l: ~ ~ LO L- ..- LO
e I"- co .,- ..- .,- I"- 0) 0) 0) N ..- 0) 0::> co 0::> I"- 0 L- a N '<t
J::. a 0
0 LO ~
E
~ 0
"E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 I"- 0
LO ..- 0 LO
"0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ ci .,- C") '<t
ro
0
E
~ 0 LO 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ I'-: LO LO 0
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ I"- 0)
0 0 .,-
Cl) .,-
ID
E 0 C! C! C! C! 0 0 0
~ I"- ell N C! .,- ~ C! ~ 0) ell '<tC") 0 0 0 0 0
.C l!:i ..- 0 0::> .,- r-..: N I"- 0) 0) N ..- .,- <ir-..: ~ 0 q '<t q
ro co l"- N N 0 0::> 0::> LO co co I"- 0::> 0 0::> coco 0 ..- 0 ..0 I"-
ID .,- ..- .,- .,- ..- .,- co
U N 0
0 N co
'c 0 I"- LO 0 0 LO I"- 0 N 0 .,- C") 0) NO LO 0 N
Cl) ~ C! ~ ~ ell ell I'-: C! 0) ~ '<t .,- ~ ~ o co ~ LO 0 N ..0
~ N C") 0) LO co ..- '<t LO ..0 I"- ei '<t C") C") C""iN 0 LO co
<( ..- .,- C! N
0 ci
>-
c
a .,- co N 0 C") I"- LO C") N ..- 0 l"- N I"- I"-'<t 0 0 ..-0
E I'-: I'-: ~ ~ ~ l"- I'-: I'-: I'-: ~ l"- I'-: I'-: ~ ~~ LO LO 0
ci ci .,- C")"-
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,- 00 0 LO '<t
<(
~ .,- ~ ..- ~ .,- ~ ..- LO ..- ~ ..- ~ ..- ~.,-
J::. 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 0
Q.
Cl)
0 :'""
E
c ::J
a
~ :;: ~ C") '<t LO co I"- 0::> C
~ C <( <( <( <( <( <( a 0::_
a.e> ::c ::c I I I ::c ::c ::c t5 0 0 00
E 'en Cl) ....J ....J
I~~ I I I I ':l 01 ^ 7~ Q) l- I- 0::0::
0 (J) I- 0..0..
- ~4 ol7
rn
C
Q}
rn
~
Co
~
rn
Q}
:::l
Iii
>
....
o
Q}
Ol
C
~
<S
'c
Q}
f!?
Ol
L-
.E
~
o
o
N
:v
..Cl
o
ts
Q.
rn
2
'(jj
::::..
Iii
'C
U;
:::l
"0
.S
"0
C
Ol
....J
rn
E
LO
ci
'0
~ to
~ ..-
g
~
c
Q)
"0
.(jj
e
'-
.E
C
o
~
2
Q)
"0
-c:i
C Ol
.Q 2
Iii Q}
=0 ::c
Q} :::l
E (5
Q) <Il
0:: -:! '0
fij ~Qj
C LOiD
:~ .!!! Qi
~ E~
a.. .2 ts
0) E2
C 0 Q}
o -,="'0
'0, 0 Ol
& c ~
>. Q} Ol
o (ij.L:
ai ~ a
Ol XC
<( Q}-o
B ~=o
c :.;::::; + ~
Ecal <0"0
~ge~ 0 ~
cctJa..c.....Q)
B -E m "& ~ C.
CQ}--o-oE
ooccc::m
OcQ}Q}Ol<ll
:==gE'--1Q)
E CQ)_~
:':E.gg~c
J2:.:i!:1'3oo
.,gJ2Wc(O~
rnornoLO E
~-5i Q) c: en .....
~:5~19"'O'+.g
~ Q}.cU) C (') Q}
~:c:::"'O ~ ..... a.
Q) ~ .s 2 OW '2 .~
-0 0 0"- 0 rn
oU)l-slij.....?;-
Z' I l(Jg~
.00(9 I- co
Or=r=o:: U) 0
ZU)I-a.. 'r=
< U)
Iii
o
(9
App~ndix1'
Laboratory ADalytical Report
31A776
I-~
A~~ ~
-,I - ,
.., , -. '
..J~... . '
____~lllilLu,
.....,....".,...,.. ~...,.....,..Jr"...... ...~::;II"J..
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
Environmental Testing Services
2520 N. San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 90065 Tel: (323) 223-9700 Fax: (323) 223-9500
~
I~
Ordered By
n
Telephone
Attn
(805) 641-1000
Bart Templeman
27266
10/19/2005
Gl:ten€ .' .
RINCON
[1
n
['
Project ID: 05-20290
proj ect Name: Fairhaven Memorial
[
l:
Enclosed are the results of analyses on 16 samples analyzed as specified on
attached chain of custody.
6-A~5j.
Rojert G. Araghi
Laboratory Director
..J
J
Nneric"" Scientific Laboratones;LLC.. ('}SI.) aCf~PtssaTpl~Jll~t~ri~l~ fron:cli~n~sfCl'''f~Iysis~th~(te~su.mRtiClI\lf'at al1orth~ .inf~nna~on. provide.~ ..' to AS!,. yerb~llyorinc
~i~ng by our client~ (a~dlor tI1eir. a~ents)!re~ardin~saIl1ples~ein~ .s~Rl)1ittedto. A.~hj~c~TIlg!~tRaIld~cf~~ate.. ~L acc~p~.an samples subject tCl thefonowing~onditions: ...
I). ASLis not ~,;spon~ibI5for ve~fying.aIly,~I!~nt-PEor~~d.!n~p.~ti,~~re~l!f~t~'..ny.s~p:IR~~~~Ii1hte1to~ela~pr~t?p'c' ". ." .... .......... .., '.' . .............. ." ..... ,'. ..' .. '. .' .,:'< .
2) A.SL is not iesporisibleforanY'col1l>equences resultitig!Tonl anYln..ccur~fi~~;. ol)1issi()~s;.o(riiis~epi-esentatio~s' continned.in.client-prpvided infoIIl)lltion regardil1g
'. sairipl~ssllbmitted IClthelaboiatory,' '. ..' ...............'..;'.. >, . '. .. .... '.' .... . .... ..... ... ....... . .... '. .' .
j
31A'777
r~
r::H
f'
L
n
L
[
[,
[-1
-,
[,
......
o
~
CI)
OJ
~
__J
u .
~ g
~ 6;
I
<Y)
iZl "l
~ "l
~ ~
o ~
E-< '.
~VJ~
O~lr)
o:l .~ ;g
~ ;::"'0
~~O\
c'5~
u c..:
>--< b.Q ~
~::::'-l
E-< '';::: '1:3'
Z VJ ~
~~~
O_~
r:/)~~
Z :::: t
~~~
u ~ l::
~6c53
~ .::. :<;
~;::..O
~~~
-,
I
--,
, ,.............................~
I _
..J "=!~
~~
J ....~ ~
~ ,~~~
' ~-U'~~
,~~
.-'
u::c<(-z
Q
~
rJ)
l.lJ
:::>
a
l.lJ
"l:!:: a::
co
o
""")
-J
rJ)
<::(
Q
Q
l.lJ
o
I..L
Q
l.lJ
o
I-
a::
o
o a..
:;:; l.lJ
c;- a::
<Y)
~ ~ ~
~ <::..... ~
M 0 Ci '-
~ a:: Q. ~
~ 1-& <1:
c.:.; U
l.lJ
-J
l.lJ
Q
-
-J
<::(
co
o
-J
<.:J
V
V
l"'-
V
(Y)
~
~
i
~..s:
~\N
/s:
01 ciC. ~
z ~ .f'
"l:!:: 1ii ~
r, Q. CI)
'-..J E -t3
8 (3 ~
~
~
CI)
u
'0
:::.
..s:
(,j
C/)
CI)
-t3
'0
<1:
1
.1
~~
,~
CI)
E
C\l
:<::
(,j
C/)
CI)
:g
<1:
CI)
.....
CiS
o
~*
~~
.,~
8
.....
u
CI)
'0'
ct
.....
u
CI)
'0'
ct
Qrl
f'
~~
~~--
.~ l I
l~ "
, c::
~~ .~
> ,\I) t;
. \f c::
OJ _
c: -
.g .~
Cl. U
Q) ", Q)
~~~
~
c)
a.:
:<::
o
1.-: }::
..... ~ a..
al C\l ii:
'0' 1ii (.)
ct ~ ~
Cl
Q u..
u:::::>cnl-QO>-
a:wUQa:O
C/)
-'<:
'-
C\l
E
CI)
CJ::
1
U)
~
rJ)
(j)
>-
~~
~~~~ ' ~l(
~~
~ ~ '!.L ./
~!::j/.9-qV~V f< 11t./~OIOV) X A- a
~ --.;~ f/I$O$ x x a
-0
.-
'D
;:;
--0.
(\
~
o \---- \- G;J a 0 8
~~xc::J<oaO
c::
o
'+:;
C\l
:::.
'-
CI)
C/)
CI)
ct
1
--~
....~
.~
.::;
~
'6
\J\
~
'-
<1>
c:
.~
c:
o
l.l
'..I\
~
~
~
~ (J
--f--\-' ~ ~
-- -
\n ~ ~ \n 1\
9 -_-:::~ -_~~~~\;::QI) c
~ '? ~ , ) '9 \ \ I, ! \ ~ ~~
E r-<"\ ~ N\ N\ ...... :::;:- -:r ;r :r ,q " ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~~~'~~ ~!~~
~ ~ -32
~_~~ E-
"co ~ :
~ ""0 ~:
Q:l CI) 0
"tJ ..c c::
Q) ~ 0
...... '::J 'i:;
(J tr:at
~ .S c::
o Q) 0
u ct: u
<1>
Q
::..
I-
'l1,
~
CI)
E
f::
~
~
~ ~
C\l
Cl
-
-
<:)
<:--
lJ.J
-./
a..
~
<1:
CI)
>-
-./
:<::
o
lJ.J
CI)
::::>
co
<1:
-./
~ ~
8; ~
- -
- f- w~ ill ~ "+h
.;J ~~71 0
8
~ ~
t t
.....; -
.Q
C\l
-./
(T" GO
Cii
I- E ..c::
~'- C/)
o :J
:<:: CJ::
o
~
-
-
Q)
E
j.::
Q)
.E
~
Q)
......
co
Cl
l"
<:::::.
I-~
q-
I-=-
.2..
Q)
......
co
Cl
l-
-.........
~
~ ::...
Q:l C3
"tJ .....
Q) co
..c "tJ.....
,vl Q) 0
:3 .::~
tr
.S ~-;:
Qi Q)O
ct: ct:1J..
'-
Q) Q)
E E
j.:: t
\:!) fO
~ }:~
.....:- --;:: I-
Q 0
Q)
.....
co
Cl
Q)
......
co
Q
f\..
.--
~
~~
.....
o
[" ~
~
[
[
[
Q.)
OJ
&:
r~
u
r'~
I
j
u
~
~
I '
I
r:/)
~
;:z
o
~ ..:.;
-< ~
~ "'.l
O\Ulr)
~,~ ~
-<(~
~\U::,<:
UVS,-:
>-l b(J ~
~~......
~ '-t: -g'
Z ~ 0
~&:::;~
u'"'-~
r./).s~
Z ~ E:
\U ~
-< ~ l::
~~~
~ i2
~ ..... :<;
~;':::"a
<r;~~
.........................~,
~ ~~
~~
, ....~ ~
j ~..,~u
~~
~
u:r:<1:-Z
o LL
u :::> C/) I- 0 0 >-
a:WUOa:D
~ CI) <li
.::.::
-- i- E .c::
C1J ~~
E <: ct:
Q Q.) . 0
~ ct:
CJ) l."
IJ.J /.)
:::> "0 ~
---
a -
IJ.J --;t Q.) Q.)
ex: E E
~ f::: f:::
CJ)
- v
CJ)
>- ~
-J ~ \T'
~ -
-
~
-
':::( Q.) Q.)
.... ....
Cll Cll
~ Q Q
- ~~~
~s' 'f1L go!\/; '~ X- 0 (;) () k K- to C D ~
~~~A~ -V~~ .x x c 0 G X .J< cO (2
~ 0 ~
~ c: ~
.~ .~
..... I~
C1J
;,. - ::,:.. ::>..
--
Q.) "'" co --
CI) 0
Q) -0 ....
ct Q.) Cll
..c: -0"-
~ ~ .:2 Q.)O
:J ;,..0
en en .~ - c- '_ Cll
..... CI) Q) CI) :i:t; .l:i , "" ~ Q.)-J
-- ~ 0 ~ - .- 0,,-
0 '0 ~ e Q.)O
0. c:i Q.)
Q) ;,. ~ '" CX:: CX::lL.
a: ":t .E: ":t u.:
~ s- ~
1--.. '- Q) """ I~ /.:1
Q) ~ ~ .,.l,
c:
!~ .~ f- ".
~ I":""" -
~ c: Q.) Q.)
c
u E E
~ 'l<: ~ - ........... f::: f:::
~ t: ''"'" \J
~ Q) I~ .-;Q.
~ ~ E -
~ j.:: ~ \$-
--
l~ \ ~ f-.o
-
~ ~ "F' Q.)
en :.'-' <: ....
~ CI) ..~ 0 co ~
~ 8 :..: f:: Q) ~ Q
\:J ..... ~ Q.. .....
\:J ..... C1J ;;;; t
o. ":t 0 ~ C1J cc Cl -;:.
Q) Q)
'0' Q) '0' . '" c: II
..... o C1J CJ
ct Vi ct ct~ Vl '-
lJ.J
Cl \.n ~ t7
\f; lJ.J ~ ~ \.n /'
-.J ~ ~
~ Q.. 9 -.:::. '-i N;) ~
~ " - 9 - ~
":t ~ ~ \ .~ I '-.:::.
~ ~ .
Vl 0. ~ ) r- i .p \ t. ~ Cj
~ g~ E I .~ t- ~ ~ i
-4- C1J ~ <t: ~ ~
Vl ~ ~ ~ A;
::::t:: .=t: ~ :x:.. ~ '" ..
~ ... ~~ .::f ~ ~
~ .- -...
~ ~ \ >- ...... ~ ~ )!
\A ~ -.J
~ C:: <: """ >- E
.~ 0 9 '<""1 s: ~ co co :
~ ~ L~ ..... lJ.J - (f)
UI 0 g; & ::,:.. -0 :
Vl .......
<) ~ ::::J .Q ~ ~ co Q.) 0
.f' ...:::::;; ?:P. C1J ..c: c:
s.:. CI) -.J (t::o. ~ ~ -0 Vl
.E: en Q) 's 0
c: CI) '" ":t ~ .... .;:;
C1J CI) c:: - c-
o. ~ 0 .~ -.J -- - 0 '-0 (
.c:: 0 Q.) .S
E Q. ~ c:
~ >( Q) Q)
<3 ~ - I- w~ l') :>- ~ ~ 0 :
":t ~ ~ ... --- -.. (j CX:: (j
~ ~~71 ::
N
~
co
a
J
-.I
CJ)
':::(
Q
Q
IJ.J
o
l1..
Q
IJ.J
o
h
ex:
a
a Q.
~ IJ.J
0;-. a:
"'"'
~ U
;;:;- ~
8. a
a:
I-
U
IJ.J
-.I
IJ.J
~
~
.
a
a
l"-o
0\
I
"'"'
"'-l
"'-l
;;:;-
""
~
Q
-
-.I
':::(
CO
a
-.I
(!J
<.0
v
t-
v
(Y)
01
Z
~
u
a
u
"
AtJ.. ~ ;
,...,. i I
~,," I fI
.--I""....s"':. i I
___.....,,-""':".J-'~ ;
........--~_-...--.-.--__.-7'..cr.
AJ\lIERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
Enriromnenlal Testing Services
2520 N. Sail Fal1Clndn I?tL, Los Angeles. CA 90065 Tel: (3]3) 223-9700 Fax: (323) 223.9500
"
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r'
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
3
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
r
Our Lab I.D.
Method: 8081A, Organochlorine Pesticides
157879 157880
Con . Limi t % Ree. % Ree.
157881
% Ree.
157882
% Ree.
157883
% Ree.
n
Surrogates
Surrogate Percent Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl
43-169
112
114
99
110
113
r:
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
L
Batch No:
[:
LCS LCS DUP LCSHPD LCS/LCSD LCS RPD
Analytes %REC %REC %REC %Umit % Limit . ."
Aldrin 56 65 14.9 42-122 <30
4,4'-DDT (DDT) 78 90 14.3 25-160 <30
Dieldrin 74 85 13 .8 36-146 <30
Endrin 87 99 12.9 30-147 <30
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane 54 61 12.2 32-127 <30
(Gamma-BHe, Lindane) --
Heptachlor 65 73 11.6 34-111 <30 ____'---___~___l.__J
----'-------. I -- '----
l-'
r-'
31A7;BO
f~
t'A~ ~
-,..; ~
......" .. i "
_ ..JtY~...,. 1i ~
___-,....~~J :
-~-~..".y--..--.---.-~~
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
FI]"I;/'O/71fzol'tffll '7""~"/I.J'0 C;ovvicp,\
_ } L ~ c--....... _ i:.;...-:' L... L-- J a.. '-"'-
2520 N. Sari Fernando 1M. !..O.\" Angeles. C\ 90065 Tel: (323) 223-9700 Fax: (323i 223-9500
I
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
f"
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
5
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2.005
Client
RINCON
r
Our Lab I.D.
Method: 8081A, Organochlorine Pesticides
157884 157885
Con. Limi t % Rea. % Rea.
157886
% Rec.
157887
% Rec.
157888
% Rec.
n
Surrogates
Surrogate Percent Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl
43-169
112
101
98
109
95
r
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
[:
Batch No:
[
LCS LCS DUP LCS RPD LCS/LCSD LCS RPD .
Analytes %REC %REC %REC % Limit %Umit ....
Aldrin 56 65 14.9 42-122 <30
4,4'-DDT (DDT) 78 90 14.3 25-160 <30
Dieldrin 74 85 13.8 36-146 <30
Endrin 87 99 12.9 30-147 <30
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane 54 61 12.2 32-127 <30
(Gamma-BHC, Lindane)
Heptachlor 65 73 11.6 34-111 <30
[
[-'
~_1
-;
u
31A7JJ1
[~
h~\ ~
-,.:. .
"- Ii .. I III
. 'IfIJ r.....p \ i i
~~..~~:;~-_.-~~
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
L"nnromnental Tes/ing Sen'ices
252() N. Saf1 Fert/ando Rd.. Los Angeles. CA 90065 "Ii'I: 13231223-9700 Fax: f323J 223.9500
r
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
[i
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
7
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Nwnber
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
n
Our Lab I.D.
Method: 808lA, Organochlorine Pesticides
157889 157890
Con.Limit % Rec. % Rec.
157891
% Rec.
157892
% Rec.
157893
% Rec.
n
Surrogates
Surrogate Percent Recovery
Decachlorobipheny I
43-169
109
120
122
112
105
[:
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
[~
Batch No:
[:
LCS LCS DUP LCS RPD LCS/LCSD LCS RPD
Analytes %REC %REC %REC % Limit % Limit .
Aldrin 56 65 14.9 42-122 <30
4,4'-DDT (DDT) 78 90 14.3 25-160 <30
--
Dieldrin 74 85 13.8 36-146 <30
Endrin 87 99 12.9 30-147 <30 --
gamma- Hexachlorocyclohexane 54 61 12.2 32-127 <30
(Gamma-BHC, Lindane) ~ 73 11.6 --
Heptachlor 65 34-111 <30
~-------- . - _...J__.__
[~
...l
-'
.J
31A782
G
A1\~
c= \ i
...1 PO- p. I!
~~..A'-!?..4 .
..Ar _.-' ___"_____ .-',.-........._~
AtvIERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
f'ill'iroJ1Jnenlai Tesling Services
2520 N. Sail Fer!1wuin Rd.. Los Angeles. CA 90065 "/"1: (323! :'.23-9700 Fax: (323) 223-9500
r
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
9
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
r
Our Lab I.D.
Method: 8081A, Organochlorine Pesticides
157894
Con. Limi t % Rec.
n
Surrogates
Surrogate Percent Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl
43-169 111
r-l
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
fj Batch No:
LCS LCS DUP LCS RPD LCS/LCSD LCS RPD
Analytes %REC %REC %REC % Limit % Limit
Aldrin 56 65 14.9 42-122 <30
--
4,4'-DDT (DDT) 78 90 14.3 25-160 <30
Dieldrin 74 85 13.8 36-146 <30
Endrin 87 99 12.9 30-147 <30
gamma- Hexachlorocyclohexane 54 61 12.2 32-127 <30 __h
(Gamma-BHC, Lindane) ---
Heptachlor 65 73 11.6 34-111 dO -----.. --
[-'
_l
L:
[
r--~
I
--'
31A7~3
[
AA\ ;
c ~ '... ; I' ~
. :Jp,.... ~ L~di' :
.--.~~:;~~ .~:;:~~~
AI\1ERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
!- ')1" i r(-)f 'Ill L''>,' 'led T" ~'ltl'11.U (,'(:J r" i F. '.> \'
"-,,, I .. .. ,l _ ( .1. 1 c... . , '--~ i...~., \- I i...-- c-.)
~
252U,V San "'I'mandn Rd. ',0.1 Angele'i. CA l)OOIi5 'hE: (323) 223-V700 FlIx: 1323 i 223-95()()
r
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
11
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
n
Method: 601OB1747lA, CCR Title 22 Metals (TTLC)
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
n
Batch No:
[J
LCS LCS/LCSD
Analytes %REC % Limit
AA Metals
Mercury 108 80-120
ICP Metals
Antimony 99 80-120
--.--------- ---
Arsenic 97 80-120 --
------- -- _.--
Barium 100 80-120 ----. j-------
Beryllium 98 80-120 1-----
~-
Cadmium 99 80-120
Chromium 88 80-120
Cobalt 102 80-120 -
Copper 95 80-120
Lead 99 80-120 .---- C------- ___ ------
.0 --
Molybdenum 102 80-120 -.------- t------
---.. --
~el 104 80-120 f-----
Selenium 96 80-120 --
Silver 99 80-120
~!lium 99 80-120
Vanadium 98 80-120
Zinc 98 80-120
'-----.
[
[
r-:
[O"
-,
[_.
r-'\
'-.0;
_J
-'
31A'7JJ4
r'"
A~~. ~
-, ~ ~ '
~" 1~! ~ ..
..J~..a ;:',: Ii ;i'" :
~....;z<""__~...P ..-, --.:......~ fl
---._'~ ----- ~--._..--"".
AMERICAN
E'llFiroJ]me mol
SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
I'" ",./' PO <" "'1'" i('", .'.
.z c_ ,) . 1...",> ...) t~ ..' l _ C. ,)
2510 N. Sail l-'cnlrwdo Rd.. !-os Angd,'s. C\ 900{j5 I;'!: 1323) 223.')700 Fax: 1323; 223-<)500
['
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
13
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
r
Method: 6010B/7471A, CCR Title 22 Metals (TTLC)
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
['
Batch No:
r
LCS LCS/LCSD
Analytes %REC % Limit
.
AA Metals .'
Mercury 108 80-120
ICP Metals
Antimony 99 80-120
Arsenic ~ 80-120
---
Barium __ 100 80-120
----- 1 -
Beryllium 98 80-120
Cadmium 99 80-120
Chromium 88 80-120 --
Cobalt 102 80-120
Copper 95 80-120
Lead 99 80-120'
Molybdenum 102 80-120
Nickel 104 80-120
Selenium 96 80-120
Silver 99 80-120
Thallium 99 80-120
Vanadium 98 80-120
Zinc 98 80 -12 0
["
r."
..'
r~
r..'
_J
l'
~----"
31A'7JJS
I~
A~\
c ': v.~ i ;
:J~_.4 . ii!
_.r....r...:l'~.J._ ."_.
~~-.------....,.....-__.~~-'~
ArvIERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
i- "1" ;U)'1 ',}..., "'[ 'II
",-_,;1 ~. l..fif, cft (.
7':'\'lI170 \eV\,jCth'
...-,~ ,,;-, l.. ,_ . 1 '. - ..... .-,
f~
2520 N. Son Ferl/ando Rd., Los Angeles. CA <)()(}o5 hi: 1323 J 223-lJ7()() Fax: 1323,1 223. <)5()(j
f'
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r-~
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
15
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
f
Method: 601OB/7471A, CCR Title 22 Metals (TTLC)
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
r
Batch No:
r--1
_..1
LCS LCS/LCSD
Analytes %REC % Limit
AA Metals
Mercury 108 I 80-120 ,
ICP Metals
Antimony 99 80-120 I
Arsenic 97 80-120 -- e-. ---
---------- ---.----- 1---- -- -.---- ----
Barium 100 80-120
.- --- --.- ------ ------
Beryllium 98 80-120
.--.----- --.-..
Cadmium 99 80-120 -- --~--- L-_.._
.. - ----- -----,. '----..-..-
Chromium 88 80-120
Cobalt 102 80-120 -- -----_.- ----. ---,--
I .
~-----_._--- --. -.--- -----1-----1
~:::er ______________ 95 80-120
-- -- ----.- -J------I
99 80-120 I -1
_._n_________.__._____________ -- _u -. ~
Molybdenu~___________ 102 80-120
-.-- -1
Nickel 104 80-120 ~
------
Selenium 96 80-120
--------
Silver 99 80-120
Thallium 99 80-120 --
----
Vanadium 98 80-120 ---
Zinc 98 80-120 ---- ---~
_____________ L-. --
r-'
[
L
l:
I '
l_ ~ J
I
I-~
31A7JJ6
r-'
);A~ ~
C~..~i:; =
~J~.A .. iHjl", ~
:-..-;:-~~-~~.;;.:::-~~..:..~
A~1ERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
t;nl'iuJi1mcnra! Tesfing Service:''\''
152() N. Snll Ferna/ldn 1M. Las .4.17[;('/(':;. CA i){)(Jo5 'id' 1323/ 213-V70(} Fax: (323) 223-9500
~
r~
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
r
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
17
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27266
Order Date
10/19/2005
Client
RINCON
p
Method: 601OB/7471A, CCR Title 22 Metals (TTLC)
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
[
Batch No:
L
LCS LCS/LCSD
Analytes %REC % Limit
AA Metals
Mercury 108 80-120
ICP Metals
Antimony 99 80-120
Arsenic 97 80-120 -- -- I--- I
1--------.--
Barium 100 I 80-120 --- f----
Beryllium 98 80-120
Cadmium 99 80-120 ~ +-----
Chromium 88 80-120 -+
Cobalt I ---+-t=--
102 80-120
Copper 95 80-120 -- -- .--
------------- 1--- I
Lead 99 80-120 ---
MolybdenuEl__ 102 80-120 -
Nickel 104 80-120 ---
Selenium 96 80-120
Silver 99 80-120
Thallium 99 80-120
Vanadium 98 80-120 --
Zinc I ,__~ 80-120 ""- ---+---
I ___-----'-__---.L__-.J
r'
r:
[
31A'7JJ7
r'
~\i
L~__~ .
.-.-.........~...,:;r'........di"'.- ~..v__.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
AivlERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABORATORIES, LLC
/.'1" 'irr'pill-" I]f.d Te ,. f iru ')'e }t"ice ("
->-"'" I" ..1 ~t:.t f_l _,j.. tl...~ ~,. I q.'
~
r'
252() N. San Ferll(wdn Rd. I.ns Angeles. CA 900f>5 Tel: (323) 223.9700 Fax: (323) 213-9500
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Ordered By
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
790 East Santa Clara Street
Ventura, CA 93001
II
fj
Telephone: (805)641-1000
Attn: Bart Templeman
n
Page:
Project ID:
Project Name:
2
05-20290
Fairhaven Memorial
Job Number
27415
Order Date
11/02/2005
Client
RINCON
[
["
.J
[
['
Method: 601OB, STLC Lead
Batch No:
r-'
i.,
[
Our Lab J.D. 158667 I
Sample ID HA6-0.5 I
- ~
Date Sampled 10/17/2005 I
c--
Date Extracted 11/04/2005 1=---
----.-.-.
Preparation Method
Date Analyzed 11/08/2005
r Matrix Soil
Units mg/L
Detection Limit Multiplier I I
Analytes PQL Results
.
ICP Metals ..
I Lead (Soluble) 0.50 ND
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Batch No:
--1
LCS LCS/LCSD
Analytes %REC % Limit
ICP Metals
_Lead (Solu~~ 92 80-120
..
~J
-J
3~~7JJ8
KO - 2/16/06
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO.
2005-28 AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2005-33 AS CONDITIONED TO
ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF FAIRHAVEN
MEMORIAL CEMETERY TO THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1701 EAST FAIRHAVEN 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 is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33 to
allow the expansion of the existing cemetery operations to property owned
by Fairhaven located directly across the street on the north side of
Fairhaven Avenue at 1701 East Fairhaven Avenue.
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Environmental Review No. 2005-28 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-
33 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana for a public
hearing January 23, 2006. The Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and continued the matter to February 13, 2006.
C. The property is zoned General Agriculture (A 1). Santa Ana Municipal
Code Section 41-201.5 allows cemeteries, mausoleums and crematories
as conditionally permitted uses within the A 1 zoning.
D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning
Commission 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 project will expand an existing cemetery and
will provide additional internment space for the community.
In addition, the extensive landscaping included in the project
and its accessibility to the public will create a park-like
31A-89
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 1 of 9
setting that will serve as a place of quiet contemplation and
open space which will provide a benefit to the surrounding
community. Finally, the proposed project will construct a
new public sidewalk on the south side of Fairhaven Avenue
thereby improving pedestrian circulation and safety.
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 potential environmental impacts of the proposed
cemetery expansion have been analyzed through Mitigated
Negative Declaration 2005-28 and it was determined that the
proposed project would not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts. Based upon this analysis, the
project will not cause any detrimental effects to the health,
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity. In addition, the proposed project provides for
extensive landscape setbacks on the northern perimeter
adjacent to existing single family residential houses which
will further serve to buffer the facility from the existing
homes. By their nature, cemeteries are quiet, low intensity
facilities that, if operated according to stringent State
standards for proper internment practices, do not pose
significant health threats to those who reside near, work in or
visit them.
3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area?
The existing cemetery, Fairhaven Memorial Park, was
originally established in 1911 and is one of the oldest and
most respected cemeteries in Orange County. The
proposed expansion of the facility will further enhance the
business operation of the cemetery and provide for its long-
term economic success thereby providing a very stable use
for the area.
4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 of the S.A.M.C. for such use?
The project has been designed to comply with the City's
design and development standards for a cemetery and will
be in compliance with the regulations established in Chapter
41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
31A-90
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 2 of 9
5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation of Open Space, which anticipates
cemetery uses. The proposed construction of approximately
12,596 square feet of mausoleum and chapel space is well
below the amount of square footage that could be
constructed on the site per the Open Space FAR of 0.2. The
property, zoned General Agriculture (A 1), allows cemeteries,
mausoleums and crematories as conditionally permitted
uses within the A 1 zoning district (SAMC Sec. 41-201.5).
The proposed project meets or exceeds all of the City's
development standards. Based upon this analysis the
proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan or
any specific plan of the City.
Section 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and
mitigation monitoring program, Environmental Review No. 2005-28, prepared with
respect to this Project. The Planning Commission has, as a result of its consideration
and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA
Guidelines, a mitigation negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program
adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On the basis
of this review, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence from which it
can be fairly argued that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the
environment. The Planning Commission hereby certifies and approves the mitigated
negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and directs that the Notice of
Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in
the manner required by law.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") 9 735.5(c)(1), the
Planning Commission has determined that, after considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources
depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved
concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to
Fish and Game Code 9 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR 9 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish
and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting
the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33 as conditioned
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. This
decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which
includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated
31A-91
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 3 of 9
February 13, 2006 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which
are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 13th day of February, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Lutz
(6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rodriguez (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
Christopher Leo
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2006-002 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on February 13, 2006.
Date:
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Santa Ana
31A-92
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 4 of 9
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-33 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 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. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 2005-
20.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. The vehicular accent paving at the primary project entry on Fairhaven
Avenue shall be constructed of integrally-colored concrete with a decorative
scoring pattern. A plan detailing the final materials and design for the entry
treatment will be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. The peaked roof architectural features on the community mausoleum
buildings shall be structurally integrated into the structures as part of the
roof and shall not be parapet-style additions to the fagade.
5. The new perimeter fence along Fairhaven Avenue shall match the existing
decorative North Garden fence with the exception that the pilasters will be
constructed with a stone veneer to match the proposed stone veneer on the
community mausoleum buildings.
6. The landscape palette shall include pine trees of the species Pinus
canariensis (Canary Island Pine) and Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine).
Said trees shall be a minimum of 48 inches box in size. The landscape
palette shall also include olive trees (Olea europaea) of a no-or-Iow fruit
bearing variety. Said trees shall be a minimum of 48 inches box in size. A
revised landscaping plan indicating the location of the trees shall be
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 5 of 9
31A-93
7. submitted to the Planning Manager for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
8. The landscape plan shall include a water feature at the primary entry off of
Fairhaven Avenue. The final design of the water feature, conceptually
approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 13,
2006, shall be detailed on the revised landscaping plan and submitted to
the Planning Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
9. The mosaics on the community mausoleum shall be redesigned to depict
scenes of nature and the outdoors. Renderings depicting the final design
of the mosaics shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Mitiaation Measures
10. Grading plans and construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect
the following notes:
a. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
b. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during periods of high
winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during
Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes.
c. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of
each day of construction.
d. All material transported off site shall either be sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
e. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
11. In the event unknown cultural resources are encountered during
construction operations, all construction activity near the finding shall halt
and the City's Environmental Coordinator shall be contacted for appropriate
action.
12. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall provide
proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water
Permit that includes:
a. A copy of the project's permit issued by the State Water Resource
Control Board that identifies the permit number.
b. Two copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 4
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 6 of 9
31A-94
13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a
Water Quality Management Plan that includes the following:
a. Site Assessment
b. Site Design BMPs
c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMPs
d. Mechanisms by which funding for long term operation and maintenance
of all structural BMPs will be provided.
e. Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term operation and
maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMPs and to
identify the entity in charge of implementation
14. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project 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.
15. Prior to issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall provide
payment for the Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fee.
16. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed project shall note
"Construction activities on the project site shall only take place between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday Through Saturday and no
construction activity shall take place on Sundays or federal holidays."
17. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed project shall note "No
construction equipment on the project site shall operate, including warming
up, until after 7:00 a.m."
18. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed project shall note "All
construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize
noise emissions and all equipment shall be fitted with properly operating
mufflers and air intake silencers."
19. Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed project shall note
"Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located away from existing
residential uses."
B. Police Department
1. The cemetery may operate only during the hours between sunrise and dusk
and will otherwise be closed to public access thereby obviating the need for
parking lot lighting.
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 4
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 7 of 9
31A-95
2. Each building will have eave lighting for security purposes, though no wall-
packs, or other light which may create spillover effects into the adjacent
residential neighborhood, may be permitted.
3. The applicant, Fairhaven Memorial Park, pursuant to California Vehicle
Code section 21100 shall provide the Chief of Police or his designate for
review and approval a proposed program of instruction in the enforcement
of traffic law for contracted personnel. That program shall be specifically
designed for the security company designated to conduct those duties at
the Memorial Park. In addition to the training program, the security guard
company must be approved by the Chief of Police. During events where
guests will be crossing Fairhaven Avenue the approved uniformed security
guards, in a number sufficient to achieve traffic control, will direct
pedestrians to safely cross Fairhaven Avenue. At each service requiring
traffic control the management of Fairhaven Memorial shall notice the on
duty Watch Commander of the Santa Ana Police Department of their
intent to control traffic and shall specify the number of guards deployed.
The approved guards shall be present during the entirety of the service in
order to provide for safe pedestrian crossing and to control and direct
traffic as needed. Any sworn representative from either the Police or Fire
Departments has the ability to evaluate and observe the guard's
performance and recommend additional training and or changes in the
way the traffic control is being performed if necessary to ensure the safety
of drivers and pedestrians. The Chief of Police or his designate, including
both sworn police officers or firefighters, reserves the right to revoke this
condition, temporarily or permanently, if they observe the traffic control
being handled in an unsafe manner. Significant special events which may
impact traffic at other intersections other than Columbine and Fairhaven
will be required to be handled by the Santa Ana Police Department's
Traffic Division. Fairhaven Memorial will be responsible for those costs.
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 4
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 8 of 9
31A-96
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and not a
party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex
2nd, Santa Ana, California 92702.
On [date], I served the foregoing document described as: Resolution No. 2006-
002 on this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes
addressed as follows:
[insert the following here
Addressee
Address]
[ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the
add ressee( s).
[X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with
U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana,
California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[ ] The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and was reported as
complete and without error.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [date] at Santa Ana, California.
MARTHA RAMIREZ
Resolution No. 2006-002
Page 9 of 9
31A-97
31A-98