HomeMy WebLinkAbout32A - TTM 2005-11, 2000 E FIRST
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 1, 2006
TITLE:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005-11
(COUNTY MAP NO. 16916) TO SUBDIVIDE
THE FIRST STREET MEDICAL BUILDING
INTO 24 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 2000
EAST FIRST STREET - NEWPORT REAL
iSTATE ~a:
TY MANAGER
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1" Reading
o Ordinance on 20' Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the staff report approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-
11 (County Map No. 16916) as conditioned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On April 10, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11 (County Map No. 16916) as conditioned by
a vote of 6:0 (Gartner absent) to subdivide the property into 24
condominium units in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district at 2000
East First Street. The Planning Commission made no changes to the
recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report
(Exhibit A) .
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
~revino
E ut~ve D~rector
Planning & Building Agency
AN:rb
an\plancomm\ttm05-11.cc
32A-1
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
APRIL 10, 2006
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 2005-11 (COUNTY MAP NO. 16916) TO
SUBDIVIDE THE FIRST STREET MEDICAL
BUILDING INTO 24 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT
2000 EAST FIRST STREET
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
o Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Ann Hsin-An Ni
~cutive Director
14{.{.€-t~ /-hl--eu--z--va-
Planning Manaier
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2005-38.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11 as
conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
Newport Real Estate Services is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 2005-11 (County Map No. 16916) to subdivide two medical office
buildings into 24 condominium units at 2000 East First Street.
Property Description
The property is located within the General Commercial (C2) zoning
district and has a General Plan land use designation of Professional and
Administrative Office (PAO) with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5
(Exhibit 1). Surrounding land uses include a combination of commercial
retail uses and offices to the north; the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway, a
school and ball fields to the south and offices to the east and west
(Exhibit 2) .
The subject property is approximately 81,022 square feet (1.86
size and rectangular in shape with frontage on First Street.
is currently vacant and unimproved. The parcel located to
consists of 5.95 acres of area and is under ownership of the
School.
acres) in
The site
the south
St. Jeanne
EXHIBIT A
32A-2
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11
April 10, 2006
Page 2
Both parcels are accessible from a shared driveway easement off First
Street. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were recorded for
the site which included provisions for shared ingress and egress,
utilities, drainage, landscaping and maintenance.
Project Description
The subject site was originally part of an eight acre parcel owned by the
St. Jeanne de Lestonnac School. St. Jeanne's has developed a child care
center and athletic fields on the southern six acre portion of the site.
Due to a strong office market in the area, in November 2005, St. Jeanne's
received City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-10 to
subdivide the site and create the subject parcel. In addition, the
Council approved Variance No. 2005-14 to reduce the required street
frontage of the St. Jeanne's parcel.
A tentative tract map is requested by Newport Real Estate Services in
order to subdivide the two new two-story medical office buildings into 24
condominium units. Each building will consist of 11,098 square feet of
area for a total combined area of 22,572 square feet. No specific tenants
have been identified for these buildings (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5) .
The design of the project demonstrate a high quality appearance
appropriate for an office use and satisfies the design standards set forth
in the Urban Design Element. The proposed building elevations are
enhanced by natural slate veneer, a clear anodized aluminum eyebrow
canopy, clear glazing on the first floor and green reflective glazing on
the second floor. These architectural features will accentuate the
exterior elevation and provide consistency with the architectural style of
the First Street Professional District. A combination of trees, shrubs
and ground cover will be planted within the setback area on First Street,
the courtyard area between the two buildings and throughout the parking
area (Exhibit 6).
The project will have two points of access; the primary point of entry
would be a private driveway easement at a signalized intersection at First
Street and Golden Circle Drive. The second point of access will be from a
driveway located at the western end of the project site. A total of 140
parking spaces will be provided on site. The proposed Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) is 28 percent which is below the 50 percent permitted under the
General Plan Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) land use
designation
32A-3
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11
April 10, 2006
Page 3
Analysis of the Issues
The tentative tract map is necessary to subdivide the existing 1.86 acre
site into 24 condominium units. The proposed subdivision is in
conformance with the City's zoning and subdivision regulations as well
as the provisions outlined in the State of California Subdivision Map
Act.
The proposed project meets all provisions of the zoning code, including
landscaping, setbacks, parking, lot size and frontage. Existing
infrastructure in the area will be upgraded to service the proj ect,
including new paving, sewer and water lines. The project developer is
required to construct a raised median along First Street from the
western driveway to the Golden Circle Driveway to eliminate unsafe west
bound left-turn vehicle movement. Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required for the project to maintain an owner's
association and ensure the site functions as an integrated development.
The CC&Rs need to be approved by the City prior to recordation of the
final map.
Excessive signage on a building could be obtrusive and disruptive to the
character of a professional district. In order to ensure clean and
concise signage on the building, a sign plan needs to be submitted and
approved prior to recordation of the final map. Signage will be limited
to a maximum of three wall signs, including one primary and two secondary
wall signs.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Professional and
Administrative office land use designation and all other elements of the
General Plan. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No.
2005-11 (County Map No. 16916) as conditioned.
32A-4
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11
April 10, 2006
Page 4
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated
Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2005-38 has been prepared
for this proj ect (Exhibit 7). Pursuant to this document all potential
impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level. The
required mitigation measures are incorporated into the attached
resolution.
~ t-v ,/
Ann Hsin-An Ni.
Associate Planner
{/~
Vince Freg
Senior Plann
AN:jm
an\plancomm\ttm05~11.pc
32A-5
SD-21 R1
;",,:", ~' R1, R1
o ,
p,., p ;: I
P
R2
p
Ml
R2
~!
R2 C2
C2 C2
1 T ST.
C2 , '""'1.. C2 C2
!;C5 C2 R1
.
01..., ------lFi>~
.
R3
R3
o
CHESTNUTI,v.
M1
,
50-161
R4
R1
i~
,
w
R1 0
p
, p
I
p j
~
4TH ST.
P
SD-54
CS
o
""'IN ST.
r City .. Tu.tln
R4 I
1
A1
-B
C-SM
C1
C1-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
GENERALAGRICULTUAAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
CQMM. COMMERCIAL-MuseUM DJSTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VilLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTEA
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
A1
~
CR
GC
M1
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
>- ~~
p p ~
~ IU
IU
z If ~o[
~
, :g
"
l
A1
A
TTM 05-11
FIRST STREET MEDICAL OFFICE
2000 EAST FIRST STREET
1" = 1000 FEET
P LAN N
N G
AND BUILD
EXHIBIT 1
32A-6
N G
City
..
Tu.'ln
R1
R2
R3
R4
RE
SD
SP
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE-FAMilY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
IA
.w
- = 500 FEET
AGE N C Y
A
OFFICE
Ildl
Jr;:
/ ~I
OFFICE ~dLE T A I L
O!!;
,,0
FIRST
STREET
~
'"
'"
t.l
t.l
"-
"-
o
~
~
GOVERNMENT
'"
OFFICE LL.
~
~
~
o
COMMERCIAL
5 C H DOL
t.l
Q
o
o
~
t.l
'"
C i I Y 0 I T u 8 tin
10S/>,
~~~'"
"I"
CHESTNUT AV.
TIM 05-11
FIRST STREET MEDICAL OFFICE
2000 EAST FIRST STREET
IA
#I'
PLANNING
AND
BUILDING
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
32A-7
: I~
1',1:1 illi
1',lllOir
i 1I11.l II Ii I
" III! I' I
ill iiiljli ~ I _ ~
!!ill! iii Iii ~!~ ~
EI 1SI B 61 ~ a;j ~
:t Iii 0"
~ d!', " I ,
~ ml11fll i~ i
t "I" ftH " ~
ll' llh,!., L" i !
~,' l!I!11J II! I;
" II. ~~ ir .L ~
j~ I'll, I '. D. jl'l I
.!l .:1 ~I I~ III ill!
'Ii
!Iii I I
"'1' '''1
"I' I i,1
il! I.!,.
I ~ Ii: . "I!
,lIlt! HII!
~i.. ..
111I11 !!~
~I
~
......
.&
~ ~iIl
~n
I- ~ ~
()&
~~
~ 0 ~
blJ f ()
:s: ,,; ~
j:::: ~ l(
~~
Ojli
j.;:::~
i::
1
Iii
S~ ;, II
I II I
I !l! I
','I, i i !!: IliLI'! !
,;I ,Ii ! ,l!! i P i!ij Ii l'll~ I
;i:' 'I ,,1,,"1"11 Ii I I
, !:~ ~! 'I i ,d. i i .,I!II! III'I!!
i::!!I!'h!!III!"liljl:!I',!!:11l
.Ii! I i II Ii IlIilll ,I 11!!I, .11, Iii
Ii ",1 '..' II
. '1111 I I i II
1'1 il' i' Ii ! i.,,'
, ,I I: I,:.. I II
,I'~I d II ! "II' '\
i!n~i j i jl i:j !d,111
, ilnU !nlil II i !I ililil
-.......
. ~~I!I~
!!i2;~p
!d:t5~~~~
I ~g~~~
.
~
~. i;
~ ~I
~ .
/! ~ I
'~~iil'tj1I~' !
i , ' lit. II" '6 I
t iii, I~~'I ~~
lJ ~ { {~i t...... I ~ I
~~~\ 'H' I~
3~~\ U I! II I
N9~it",i; Fn" ,
i>f~8 '. ~! \ !
"'~i 1,:!1 ..I L I I
~ ~ "'I l
'I~ b . ..Ll1 I
'" "'. \
",,,,,J.:.,,,,J[II . ~n.n '.___ ..___ m :
-,...---.. - ...
t
to ~~
t; ~~
~~~
~;iS pl~:%PI~
Ci ~ :: IrIIPfT1Il1 <In-1TTJ. alUl3 LI"ls- lrIfI-rq
0..: ~ /i/I .
"
".. .. .. .. "''' .. l! ~, ,:1
~ oj .. .. .... ~..........
\ ~\;; I~
u\ ~/.IarPfPl8.:JU1().llaJs-glaflR1ZR:-
~ '%"~&~~
--ok
-~.-
J I .-..T-----:::t:O::::::-"+::::::::.:/
j 1,'",
,
.~\~. )
'a ..i: !
I l<-1 ~ ,I
,-" I
k
f : !
~ 1: 10olI, " I
Ii [)l \
: 11
ill .
"
~ '\ '
J ~ ~,)
tl'
r
'Iii'
~
llii'
~
,
I~"
111\"
III, ,
-\11
III' ,
III I
(
, ,
" "I
" "I
II
11111
, .,
, !
I
I
,
~l~
,
I
I
I
r
,
-" ' .
/~
._____.L.___
-
o
-,,--..
=~
~'Di\~
~DI--._7=~[1
''''''''""'''I'Y'"'~'''
-,..".,.,,,,
VZVld 'lV3Ia3W B~lS lS~I1:I
SN\f1dl:lOOldlSl::lt::l
""""''''''''.'''''''~=';';',~
":)NJ 's:!:)lA1I3S llV~S3 lV311.L1I0dA\3K
iThii;N:&m~.~d '3;~~i~~
S3LVDOSSY"'ffil3A3'l:[3G
..
, , " , " , , .
@ . ....~ -- - . ~~~
; ~
y II y
, ,
II
P ,J , ,
'I
i II i
II
@ dj y
. . ------------t--------------+--------------t-------------- ~ . .
I'
I! .1
Y Ii ;
, ~i0 'I ,
,.
;; ,J ;
; il i
I,
, "
~ /: f\ f1 II
@ ; dj ,
TCIl IIA-'I ~T ~n--;~ , ,
~ i "r:-. ' . . I . . I' ~. , i i
I g = i
; i- llffilIi ' &011 ~
.
, ' t-i
I I ~ ! I
d y I i~ i[!] 1 ,,' ~
" ~ == ~ ~
[mn== ]ill ~:g
1- ~
I 1 ,
" i i
@ H ,- ~, rii'll"" 11'" ,t:-.CI .,.;. . '"If'l' ~.~,SI 'i'1' .t'1f'i'l .~ 1'~
"\]TV \... i~ LJ v-rV ;
1 I
Y
- I! ,
I' I!
r ,;
"0 i
';2~ -
i I
,
@~ . --------------t--------------+--------------t-------------- . I
i I . '" .
~ i I I! ~
i !I
i I.
't I Ih! ; ;
i - i
"
; i II ;
, i ,
@ , i dj ,
- -- . -.~~ " -
....,. ., " ."",~I " .<:>-,1:1 " , .....
- e e e '"
32 ATW 05-11
~IBIT4
10
~
~
II
~
.
~
~
"
~DDI--.-~JI
~f--o '
I I
I r- -r-
I _
Ii......
If
-
~
=
i
i
01
I
,
~ ~ ~ . 1 ~ -~ .~ '
~~
f-
W
W
a:
f-
(/)
i i i
i i i
i i I
I i I
------r-- 'T---I--
i i i
i i i
i i i
'" I i ~ '~
~ 'I I
il.t.=\
~ ~
I I '__ \
i
f-
(/)
a:
l.L.
;;1
~~
JTI7 ,
"I 1
I I I
i i i ,
! i i i ,
i
1 I I ,
i i
i i ,
i !
i n
i - -
I~ -- I
~~~ D
-
" ..,"....... a.
#,1 .-......
...........". a.
~~1~~~~~~
11f'
-..
ii
: 1_'
I i
"..""" ffillG
''''''''''''ltI''''''''~=';;'~
JNI'SDI^lBSllY~S::!lY311.D1OdA\3N __ ~ ~ ~ ~ :i:
xxx'" ~=~~;~~;;! ~
VZVld lV.:>IGHW Ltlffill.S l.SID..!
0'
t--------
~\ ..
.
,
'"'
'V
"'
~
l
!
------
n~
~ ~
-;-
II
"
:=1
I b
I I
.
!
;
.
l
!
.~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
324k~,ai ~
"'
"'
"'
.
,
'" l
'" ~ ,
I
.
'"
'"
"'
,
~ l ~
~ ~'~ ~ ~
~
Vft
i
~
=
= I
i
= ,
=
=
=
=
;;==
.
"'.-
~ --'-
nr
.-..
I
~i'i'jW~~
''''''''''''"0'''''''' 10
'o?0-1I<'01.", "''' ~"""I"''''''''''''~
.JNI'S3:JI^1l8:S::llV1S'31\1311Di'orM..~ _ I ~ ~ ~ ~
""'''''~~l:,';';.~::l I
VZVJd TV':)IatlW 1.3:31115 l.S~Id:
_'._m -,,-,- IOJDI I
;'-i~~~;":'";,~~~V'd . a;~;;~".t~~;~';'
S3lVlJOSS.\>'r;....3A3 3 -,: __._7=~ :
!III 11~'~~Ii~I! ml\f Ii! 111 III 1111
~ 'III ml!hllililllil~ ~ :111\ ,I!I!
i I,!dilll! lni IlIi II Ii I 111 II 1 I!IIIIIII Id,lIl ill II
< U
0--- 0--- c;r-- 0---
:z z
0 :z 0 z
~ 0 ~ 0
j:: < ~
Er-- '" 0--
-' i1i -'
w -' " -'
~- ~ " @--- ;': w
~ ~ ~
" :il
0--- 0---
0--- @---
0--- 0---
32&~J
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Lisa Bist
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
PatriciCl E. Healy
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20l
P.O. BOX 1988. Santd And, 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:
First Street Medical Building
Project Description:
The proposed project is a request for a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide the property into 24 condominiums in the General
Commercial (C2) zoning district.
Project Location:
2000 East First Street
Project Number:
DP 05-26, ER 05-38, TIM 05-11
Public Review Period:
March 17.2006 to April 5, 2006
Hearing Date:
April 1 0, 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 4-05-06. Please direct your comments to:
Ann Ni, Associate Planner, 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 Ann Ni
at (714) 667- 2725.
ANI\NEGDECS\NOI4ND
TTM 05-11
tt~~J 2
CSW6-2
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pul ida
MAYOR PRO TEM
Lisa Bist
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-10l
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 667-2700. Fax 17141973-1461
www.santa-ana.org
MlliIG.A.1iED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for
the project described below:
Project Number:
DP05-26, ER 05-38, TTM 05-11
Applicant:
Newport Real Estate Services
Project Location I Address: 2000 East First Street
Project Title I Description: The proposed project consists of a request a request for a
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11 (County Map No. 16916)
to subdivide the property into 24 condominium units in the
General Commercial (C2) zoning district
And does hereby find:
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to
the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the
applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance.
"
Signature:
~7;J2
Associate Planner
Date:
~-f1-0b
This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative
official, and a Notice of Determination is filed.
3~&13
CS.606-2
FIRST STREET MEDICAL BUILDING
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ER 2005-38
Prepared By
City of Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA
October 7, 2005
3~~814
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
is to describe the proposed project and provide an evaluation of
potential environmental effects associated with the short-term
construction and long-term operation of the proposed First
Street Medical Building. The Initial Study has been prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Santa Ana CEQA
Environmental Procedures.
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed proj ect. The
Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving the proposed
project.
PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
submitted to potentially affected agencies and individuals. In
accordance with Section 15072 (b) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
project area.
There will be a 20-day public review period for the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section
15073 of the CEQA Guidelines. In reviewing the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, affected public agencies
and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the
document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts on
the environment and ways in which the potentially significant
effects of the project are avoided or mitigated through the
design of the project.
Comments on the Initial Study can be sent to the following:
Mr. Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
PO Box 1988, M-20
Santa Ana, California 92702
3~~815
SECTION 2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a request for approval of a parcel map
to allow for the development of two, 2-story medical office
buildings.
EXISTING SETTING
The project site is located at 2000 East First Street at the
southwest corner of First Street and Golden Circle Drive. The
project site consists of 1.73 acres and is currently vacant.
The project site is situated within an urbanized setting and is
surrounded by commercial office buildings to the north, east and
west, and a school athletic field and the Santa Ana Freeway to
the south.
The General Plan designation for the project site is
Professional Administrative Office with a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of FAR 1.0. The zoning on the project site is General
Commercial.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request for approval of a parcel map
to allow for the development of two, 2-story medical office
buildings. Each building would consist of 11,098 square feet of
area for a total combined area of 22, 572 square feet of medical
office area. The proposed buildings would be situated on
northern portion of the property, fronting along First Street.
Each building would have a footprint size of approximately 5,490
square feet. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the project
would be FAR 0.28. The maximum height of each building would be
39-feet. A landscape courtyard area would be located between the
two buildings.
The proposed project would have two pints of access. The
primarily entrance would from a signalized intersection at
Golden Circle Drive. The second point of access would be from a
driveway located at the western end of the project site. In
accordance with the City's parking requirements for medial
office buildings a total of 140 parking spaces would be
provided.
2
3~~6
The proposed buildings would be a concrete tilt-up structure
with a modern design accented with natural slate stone, clear
anodized canopies, handrails, and storefront system. The
exterior of the building would consist of earth tone colors. The
windows on the building would have a green tinted glazing. A
comprehensive landscape plan for the project has been proposed,
which includes trees, shrubs and ground cover. Additionally,
the proposed project includes a sign program.
PROJECT APPROVALS
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
the proposed project would provide the supporting environmental
documentation for the following approvals.
.
Compliance with California Subdivision Map Act and approval
of a Tentative/Final Tract Map
3
3~~7
SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed First
Street Medical Building based on the City of Santa Ana's CEQA
Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by
reference the analysis and findings in the City of Santa Ana
Updated General Plan Land Use Element FEIR and the City of Santa
Ana Master Environmental Assessment. Additionally, a traffic
analysis has been prepared for the proposed project and 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.
I. AESTHETICS
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a
State highway?
No Impact
The project site is situated within an urban setting and is
surrounded by developed land uses. According to the City's
General Plan there are no scenic vistas or scenic resources
within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Additionally,
there is no State Highway with scenic resources within the
vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any
scenic vista or scenic resources along a State Highway.
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and it's 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 includes; Paths, and Districts.
4
3~818
Paths
Paths are means by which people travel throughout the City
and serve as the framework for the City's urban form.
Within the project area, the Urban Design Element
identifies First Street, as a Path. To enhance the aesthetic
environment along First Street, the proposed project has
incorporated a landscape setback along First Street that
provides a landscape buffer between the project site and First
Street. The proposed project would be consistent with the intent
of the Path designation.
Districts
The General Plan Urban Design Element identifies that the
project site is located within the Tustin Avenue Design
District. The Urban Design Element establishes goals and
policies to help guide the design of land uses 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 been designed to compliment the
existing architecture design within the Tustin Avenue Design
District. Through the City's development review process, the
proposed project was determined to be consistent with the intent
of the City's Urban Design Element.
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 situated within an urbanized area and is
surrounded by onstreet lighting. Implementation of the proposed
project would not introduce substantial amounts of new sources
of light and glare into the project area. Any lighting provided
on the project site would be designed and located so that all
direct rays are confined to the project site.
II. AGRICULTURE
A.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use?
5
32A5,9
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 Fa~land, to non-agriculture
use?
No Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not
contain any Unique Farmlands, Prime Farmlands or Farmlands of
Statewide Importance. Additionally, based on a site visit
conducted by the City's Environmental Coordinator, the proj ect
site is currently not in agricultural production. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
loss of any farmlands.
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 (SCAQMD). 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.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and would not result in growth projections beyond those
established in the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not be in conflict with the growth
projections and air quality objectives established in the South
Coast AQMP.
B.
Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
6
32A5~O
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
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-1.
Table A-l
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 operational emissions would be generated
by vehicle travel to and from the project site. A relatively
minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural
gas and electricity usage. Summarized in Table A-2 are the
project-related operational emissions for on-road mobile sources
and stationary sources for the proposed First Street Medical
Building.
7
3~Ato? 1
Table A-2
Operational Phase Emissions
(Pounds/Day)
CO ROC NOX PM10 SOX
Stationary Sources .18 .04 1. 04 .03 .09
(Electricity/Natural
Gas)
Mobile Sources 188.6 20.9 9.0 1.8 0
Total 188.78 20.94 10.04 1. 83 .09
SCAQMD Standard 550 55 55 150 150
Significance No No No No No
Source: City of Santa Ana Master Environmental Assessment
As shown in Table A-2, operational emissions generated by the
proposed First Street Medical Building would produce air
pollutant emissions below the thresholds for all analyzed
criteria pollutants. Therefore, the long-term operational air
quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be
less than significant.
Short-ter.m constructed Related Air Quality Impacts
Construction operations associated with the proposed project
could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate
mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and
ozone.
Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air
Quality Handbook as a guideline, potentially significant short-
term air quality impacts could occur when construction
operations involve over 1,309,000 square feet of grading. The
proposed project would involve approximately 82,022 square feet
of grading. This amount of grading would be below the guideline
to determine potentially significant short-term air quality
impacts.
D. Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Even though grading operations associated with the proposed
project would result in less than short-term air quality
impacts, uncontrolled dust from grading operations could be
nuisance to nearby land uses. The proposed project would be
subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 sets
8
3~~r~2
forth general and specific requirements for all construction
sites in the South Coast Air Basin. The general requirement
prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of
fugitive dust from construction such that the presence of this
dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line
of the emissions source. To insure Fugitive Dust Rule 403 is
implemented, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure
. Grading plans for the proposed project shall reflect the
following notes:
1. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessi ve amounts of dust.
Watering with complete coverage shall occur at least
twice daily, once in the late morning and once after
work is done for the day.
2. All clearing
during period
averaged over
smog episodes.
and earthwork activities shall cease
of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph
one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2
3. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned
at the end of each day of construction.
4. All material transported offsite shall
sufficiently watered or securely covered
excessive amounts of dust.
either be
to prevent
5. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork
activities shall be minimized at all times.
6. Equipment engines shall be
condition and in proper
manufacturer's specifications.
maintained in
tune according
good
to
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
The operation of the proposed project would not generate odors
that would be objectionable to the public. During construction
operations some objectionable odors could be emitted from
9
3~A~3
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 site is situated within an urban setting. According
to the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity
Data Base and the City's Updated General Plan Land Use Element
EIR, there are no sensitive biological resources located on or
within the nearby vicinity of the project site. The project
site is vacant and would not require the removal of any trees.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in any adverse impacts to biological resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section l5064.5?
No impact
The project site is currently vacant and void of any structures.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
impact any historical structures located on the project site.
10
3~A-~4
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries.
C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
pa1eontogical resource or site?
Less than Significant Impact
According to the Updated General Plan Land Use Element EIR,
there are no known cultural resources on the project site.
Additionally, the project site is located within an urbanized
area and chance for the discovery of unknown cultural resources
would be low.
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
A-l. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Less Than Significant
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a statewide
seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist
cities and counties in protecting the public health and safety
from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and
other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Additionally, the
Alquist-Priolo Act directs the State Geologist to delineate
regulatory zones that encompass surface traces of active faults
that have the potential for future surface fault rupture.
The Tustin, California Quadrangle Official Map of Seismic Hazard
Zones dated January 17, 2001 was reviewed to evaluate potential
seismic impacts on the proj ect site. According to the Seismic
Hazard Zone Map, the project site is not located within a
designated Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. Additionally, the surface
traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known
to pass directly through or extend towards the proj ect site.
Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting
occurring beneath the project site during the design life of the
proposed project is considered low.
11
3~A-~5
A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is situated within a highly active seismic
region of southern California. A total of 38 active faults have
been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the
project site. The NewportjInglewood Fault located approximately
8 miles south from the City and the Whittier Fault located 13
miles northeast of the City are considered to be the most
dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts.
A seismic event along anyone of these faults could result in a
7.0 magnitude earthquake. A seismic event of this scale could
potentially result significant damage to the proposed project.
However, the seismic risks at the project site would not be
considered to be 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 site-specific geotechnical study to evaluate seismic
constraints and the building loads of the project and identify
design recommendations to minimize potential seismic shaking
impacts.
Mitigation Measure
. Prior to issuance of grading permits the proj ect developer
shall prepare and submit for approval a geotechnical report
that addresses seismic constraints, soil stability and
provides design recommendation to insure the geotechnical
stability of the project site.
A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact
Soil liquefaction occurs when loose soil deposits below the
water table are subjected to large ground accelerations
generated from seismic events. Liquefaction is generally known
to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower
than about 50-feet. According to the General Plan Land Use
Element EIR, there is very low-to-Iow potential for liquefaction
impacts.
12
32Ai~6
A-4. Landslides
No Impact
The project area is flat without any topographical relief.
According to General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no
landslide planes or slopes within the project area. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project 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 Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock
surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are
intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff
channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the
soil exposed.
construction operations for the proposed project would require
the grading of onsite soils. The uncovered soils on the project
site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation
impacts to onsite and off site drainage facilities. This
potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To
reduce potential erosion impacts to a level considered less than
significant, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure
.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
developer shall show proof of coverage under NPDES General
Industrial Activity Storm Water Permit, which includes a
copy of the project's permit issued by the State Water
Resource Control Board that identifies the permit number.
.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant
shall submit for review and approval a surface
drainage/grading plan/erosion control plan, prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means
of flow to adjacent streets. The plan is to include
existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all
property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be
directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
13
3~~7
c. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological
feature?
No Impact
According to the City's Updated General Plan Land Use Element
EIR, the project site 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
According to the Updated General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
project site contains Mocho Loam Soils that have low
shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated
steel and low potential for corrosion of concrete. Based on the
soil conditions on the project site the proposed project would
be geotechnically feasible. Through the City's Development
review process, the proposed project would be required to
prepare a site-specific geotechnical to address the geologic
conditions on the project site, building loads of the project
and the identification of design recommendations to ensure the
long-term geotechnically stability of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure
· Prior to issuance of grading permits the proj ect developer
shall prepare and submit for approval a geotechnical report
that addresses seismic constraints, soil stability and
provides design recommendation to insure the geotechnical
stability of the project site.
E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater is the soil capable of supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems?
No 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.
14
3~5~8
VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less Than Significant Impact
The long-term operation of the proposed project would not
involve activities that would emit hazardous emissions or
involve the routine handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials. Short-term construction operations and the long-term
operation of the proposed project could potentially involve the
handling and storage of incidental amounts of hazardous
substances, such as paints, oils and solvents. However, the
quantities of hazardous materials handled would be minimal and
would not pose a health hazard to the public.
B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within a quarter mile of a school
site. The proposed project is a medical office that would not
emit hazardous emissions. The long-term operation and
construction operations of the proj ect could involve the use
hazardous materials such as paints, and sol vents. However, the
quanti ties would be minimal and would not pose a hazard to the
public.
C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government
Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, the
project site is not included on a list of hazardous material
sites. Implementation of the proposed project would not 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
15
3~A5~9
where a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
No Impact
According to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
Airports Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located
within an Accident Potential Zone, or Clear Zone. Additionally,
the proposed project would not exceed the height restrictions,
established in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
safety hazards for people residing in or working within the
project area.
VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements?
I. Resulting an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving
waters?
J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction.
E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
K. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion
downstream?
N. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on
the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) list. If so, can it
result in an increase in any pollutant of which the body is
already impaired?
O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so,
can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?
P.
Have a
surface
waters?
potentially significant
water quality to either
environmental impact or
marine, fresh or wetland
R.
Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface
or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
16
3~A5~O
S. Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed
and the San Diego Creek sub-watershed. 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 the Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan. The City of Santa Ana
implements the goals, obj ecti ves and requirements of the Basin
Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the City's Local
Implementation Plan.
The project site consists of 81,022 square feet of area of which
15,300 square feet of area would consist of pervious landscape
areas. Presently, the project site is vacant and without
structural Best Management Practices to minimize long-term water
quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed
project.
The project site storm water flows would drain by sheet flow
along the project parking lot to an existing underground storm
drain located near the western boundary of the project site. The
drainage flows would be conveyed southerly to the Santa
Ana/Santa Fe open storm drain before ultimately discharging into
the lower Newport Back Bay. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board has identified the Lower Newport Back Bay as an
impaired water body.
Short-Term Construction Related Water Quality Impacts
During construction operations there is the potential that
surface water runoff could be degraded. If the degraded surface
water runoff is conveyed into the local storm drain system,
potential adverse water quality impacts could occur to
downstream receiving waters. To minimize potential construction
related water quality impacts, the proposed project would be
required to prepare and implement a storm water pollution
prevention plan.
Long Term Operational Water Quality Impacts
The primary concern for water quality pollutants associated with
the operation of the proposed project would be from urban
runoff. Urban runoff is defined as runoff that occurs during
17
3~5;31
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 originates in the street, they
commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as
oil and grease and sediment. Additionally, adverse water quality
impacts could occur from rain events when sediment, grease and
oil on roadways and parking lots are flushed into the local
storm drain system. Currently, the project site does not contain
any structural Best Management Practices, which could
potentially decrease the amounts of pollutants from entering the
storm drain system. Uncontrolled urban runoff generated from the
project site could result in adverse water quality impacts to
downstream receiving waters.
The proposed proj ect has proposed a preliminary water quality
management plan to manage storm water flows generated from the
project site. The water quality management plan proposes a
filter in the parking lot catch basin to collect runoff, trash,
debris, sediment and grease and oil. Additionally, the proposed
project includes a series of Routine Structural and Routine Non-
Structural Best Management Practices to minimize water quality
impacts.
To reduce potential short-term construction related water
quality impacts and long-term operational water quality impacts
to a level that would be less than significant, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES
General Industrial Activity Storm Water Permit, which
includes a copy of the project permit number issued by the
State Water resource Control Board.
.
Prior to the issuance of gradi8ng permits the project
developer shall submit for review and approval a surface
drainage/grading/erosion control plan, prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means
of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include
existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all
property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be
directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
18
32A-~2
. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall prepare an NPDES post-construction storm
water management plan per Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all structural and
non-structural Best Management Practices for the project.
. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the project
developer shall submit and have approved a surface
drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable Site
Design, structural Source Control and Treatment Control
BMPs in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan and the City of Santa Ana Local
Implementation Plan.
. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the project
applicant shall provide two copies of the Water Quality
Management Plan that includes, site assessment, Site Design
BMPs, Applicable Routine Source Control BMPs, selection and
sizing of the Treatment Control BMPs, funding mechanisms
for long-term operation and maintenance and an Operation
and Maintenance Plan.
.
Prior to the issuance of building permits
developer shall provide payment of City of
Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fees.
the project
Santa Ana
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
groundwater quality?
significant
adverse
impact
on
No Impact
The proposed project would not interfere with ground water
recharge because the project area is not located in an area that
is known to recharge the ground water system. Additionally,
construction operations associated with the proposed project
would encroach into the underground water basin. Implementation
of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
to any underground water supplies.
c. Substantially alter
or area, including
stream or river, or
the existing drainage pattern of the site
through the alteration of the course of
substantially increase the rate or amount
19
3~-~3
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?
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. Through the City's development
review process, the Public Works Agency has determined the
existing drainage facilities within the project area could
provide adequate drainage for the project.
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 lOO-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
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. 0602320277H. 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
20
32.A-~4
The project site is situated within an area that is
characterized with commercial land uses. The presence of the
proposed project would not divide any established neighborhoods
or result in any adverse land use compatibility impacts.
B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact
The general plan designation for the project site is
Professional Administrative Office with a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of FAR 1.0. The zoning on the project site is General
Commercial.
The proposed project is a medical office use with a FAR of .28.
The project would be consistent with the Professional
Administrative Office General Plan designation and the General
Commercial zoning designation on the project site.
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community plan?
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan, the project site is not
included within any habitat conservation plan or any natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not be in conflict with any habitat
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 Updated General Plan Land Use Element
EIR, there are no areas in Santa Ana that are designated
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.
21
32,A-J5
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. The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana
Noise Element is to establish noise level guidelines that are
compatible with different types of land uses and to prevent
significant increases in noise levels in the community. These
guidelines for exterior noise levels as presented in Table N-1.
Table N-l
City Of Santa Ana Land Use Guidelines For Exterior Noise
Land Use Noise Level (dBA CNEL or Ldn)
Desirable Maximum Acceptable
Maximum
Low Density 55 65
Residential
Medium Density 60 65
Residential
High Density 65 70
Residential
Schools 60 70
Commercial, Office 65 75
Industrial 70 75
Existing Noise Setting
The project site is located within an urban environment and is
primarily impacted with mobile source noise impacts from First
Street. According to the City's Updated General Plan Land Use
Element EIR, the average distance of the 70 CNEL along First
Street is approximately 75-feet from the centerline of the
roadway.
Standards to Determine Significant Impacts
The applicable noise standards governing the project site are
the City of Santa Ana Noise Standards shown on Table N-1. The
Noise Standards shown on Table N-1 identifies that the maximum
acceptable noise environment for office uses at 75 CNEL.
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.
22
3~-J6
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.
Less Than Significant Impacts
Traffic Noise
As mentioned above the 70 CNEL is located approximately 75-feet
from the centerline of First Street. The proposed medical
buildings are located approximately 90-feet from the centerline
of First Street. Therefore, the noise level at this location
would be less than the 75 CNEL and the proposed medical office
use would be compatible with the noise environment.
The proposed project would generate vehicle trips that are added
to the local roadway network and the inclusion of these vehicles
could raise traffic noise levels within the project area. An
impact is considered significant if the project were to increase
this noise by an audible level of 3 dBA CNEL.
Typically, a 3 dB increase to an existing noise level would
occur when there is a doubling of traffic within the project
area. The proposed project would generate an additional 1,150
vehicle trips within the project area. This amount would not
double the amount of traffic within the project area and
therefore, would not result in a 3 dB increase to existing noise
levels.
B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Less Than Significant Impact
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. One of the more common
forms of vibration impacts associated with construction
operations is from pile driving activities.
The construction of the proposed project would involve the use
of conventional construction and equipment and would not involve
the use of pile driving activities. Less than significant
vibration impacts would occur.
23
3~~7
D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without project.
Less than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-
term construction related noise impacts. The construction-
related short-term noise levels would be higher than the
existing noise levels in the project area, but would no longer
occur once construction of the project is complete.
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
potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in
ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over
a 24-hour period.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise
generated at the site during construction operations. Typically,
the estimated construction noise level is governed primarily by
the highest noise producing pieces of equipment. Table N-4 lists
typical construction equipment noise levels based on a distance
of 50-feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
TABLE N-4
NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Suggested Sound
Range of Sound Levels for
Levels Measured Analysis (dBA at
Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet) 50 feet)
Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 81 to 96 93
18,000 ft-Ib/be1ow surface
Rock Drills 83 to 99 96
Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85
Pumps 68 to 80 77
Dozers 85 to 90 88
Tractor 77 to 82 80
Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88
Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86
24
3~A5;38
Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86
Graders 79 to 89 86
Air Compressors 76 to 86 86
Trucks 81 to 87 86
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 would change
the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore,
the noise levels surrounding the site as construction
progresses. Table N-4 identifies estimated noise levels for the
different construction phases of the project. To obtain a worst-
case estimate of noise from the different construction
activities associated with the proposed project, noise levels
for construction activities were assumed to include applicable
construction equipment identified in Table N-5.
Table N-5
Typical Noise Level at Construction Sites
Minimum Equipment All Applicable
Required equipment In Use
Construction Phase Noise Level (dBAl at Noise Level (dBAl at
50-Feet 50-Feet
Ground Clearing 84 84
Excavation 79 89
Foundation 78 78
Construction
Building Construction 76 85
Finishing/Site cleanup 76 89
As shown on Table N-5, noise levels under a worst-case condition
with all applicable equipment in use would produce 89 dBA at a
distance of 50-feet from excavation as well as from finishing
and site clean up activities. Assuming that the average distance
of the construction activities from adjacent land uses is 50-
feet from the center of the construction activities, noise
levels at the property would range from 78 to 89 dBA.
The project site is located north of an existing athletic field
of a school site. Typically the school site and the athletic
field of school site would be considered a sensitive noise
receptor. The athletic field would be impacted by potentially
significant short-term construction related noise impacts.
The Municipal Code recognizes that some forms of noise are
required for urban development and maintenance and are difficult
to control. Section 18-314 (el exempts noise sources associated
25 3~Ar~9
with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real
property, provided said activities do not take place between the
hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. While
adverse, construction, when performed in compliance with the
requirements of the Municipal Code is considered to be less than
significant.
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.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly through extension of roads or
other infrastructure.
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Code and would not result in growth beyond what is
projected in the General Plan. The proposed project is a medical
office use and would not induce substantial amounts of
population growth within the project area.
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?
26
34A~O
No Impact
The project site is currently vacant. The development of the
proposed project would not displace existing households or
create need for the construction of substantial amounts of new
housing. The proposed project does not include any major roadway
or infrastructure improvements that would indirectly facilitate
growth within the project area.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire
protection and emergency services to the project area. The City
maintains ten fire stations throughout the City. The fire
stations are situated where no location in the City is outside
of an approximate 1.5 radius of a fire station. Additionally,
the City maintains a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection
services with the neighboring Cities of Fountain Valley, Garden
Grove, Tustin, Irvine and Costa Mesa. According to the City of
Santa Ana Insurance Service Organization, the City has a low
fire risk rating.
According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, the goal of the fire
department is to have an onsite response time of 5:00 or less
80% of the time. Fire Station No. 2 located at 1668 E. 4th Street
is the closest fire station to the project site. Presently, a
shift at Fire Station No. 2 consists of four fire fighters, 1
fire engine and 1 paramedic van.
The proposed project would not substantially increase the demand
for fire protection and emergency services within the project
area. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department under existing
levels of manpower and equipment, it does not anticipate any
significant constraints in providing adequate fire protection
services to the proposed project.
Police Protection:
Less Than Significant impact
The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection
services for the proposed project. The Police Department is
headquartered at 60 Civic Center Plaza.
The City of Santa Ana is subdivided into four policing
districts, with each district serving a section of the City.
The proposed project is located within the Westend District. The
27
3ZAiA 1
District is considered to be an average crime area, compared to
other areas in the City.
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially
increase the demand for police protection services over current
levels of demand. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated
that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would
have the ability to provide adequate police protection services.
School Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified
School District. The proposed project would not directly
generate additional school service demand within the school
district. To help fund new construction of school facilities,
Tustin Unified School District levies an impact fee for
commercial area. The payment of fees to the district would
mitigate impacts on school services to a level considered less
than significant.
Parks: Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana presently operates 35 facilities within
its parks and recreation network, along with several public
school grounds. The park and recreation facilities within the
City of Santa Ana include 342.5 acres of lands, which is
equivalent to approximately one acre per 1,000 residents.
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
City's current goal for parkland is 2.0 acres per 1,000
residents. Based on the Cities current parkland goal and
existing parkland to population ratio, additional parkland is
needed to meet the park needs of the community. The proposed
project would not increase the population in the City and would
not contribute to the imbalance of the parkland/population ratio
in the City. Therefore, implementation of the propose project
would result in less than significant impacts to park services.
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,
28
3~~2
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not generate
additional demands on existing recreation facilities or require
the construction of new recreation facilities.
xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The following analysis is based on a traffic screening analysis
prepared for the proposed project by P&D consultants in May of
2005. The traffic report is presented in its entirety in
Appendix A.
A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system?
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than Significant
City of Santa Ana Roadway Segment/Intersection Analysis
The project site is located within the northeastern area of the
City of Santa Ana at the intersection of First Street and Golden
Circle.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan
Land Use Element. The proposed project would generate 816 daily
vehicle trips with 56 occurring during the AM peak hour and 84
during the PM peak hour. The amount vehicle trips generated by
the proposed project would be consistent with the traffic
projections in the Circulation Element and would not reduce the
level of service of any roadway segments or intersections within
the project area.
Even though the proposed project would not result in significant
traffic impacts, it would contribute traffic to the regional
transportation network. To address regional traffic impacts the
proposed project would be subject to Foothill Ranch
Transportation Corridor Fee and Transportation System
Improvement Fee.
29
34A~3
County of Orange Congestion Management Program Analysis
Based on the 2001 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway
System, no roadway segment links are adj acent to the proj ect
site. However, three intersections near the project site are
identified as CMP intersections. These CMP intersections are
First Street at I-5 Southbound Ramp, Fourth Street at the SR-55
Northbound Ramps and Fourth Street at the SR-55 Southbound
Ramps.
A CMP traffic impact analysis is required when a proposed
project distributes and assigns three percent or more traffic to
the capacity of a transportation facility. For a four-lane CMP
roadway segment, 2,400 or more vehicle trips per day would
exceed the threshold. The threshold for a CMP intersection would
be 51 peak hour trips.
The proposed project would generate 816 daily vehicle trips with
56 tips occurring in AM peak hour and 84 trips occurring in the
PM peak hour. The distribution of the vehicle trips was
determined by examining the locations of surrounding trip
attractorsjproducers. The trip distribution percentages used in
this traffic analysis is shown in Exhibit A. Based on the trip
distribution, project trips were assigned to the project area
roadway system. Because more traffic would be generated during
the PM peak hour than the AM peak hour, only the PM peak hour
project trip assignment for direction and link is shown in
Exhibit B.
Average Daily Traffic
The 816 daily vehicle trips generated by the proposed project
would be less than the 2,400 daily trips threshold for potential
significant impacts to CMP roadway links.
Intersection Volume Screening Analysis
Based on the PM peak hour trip assignment shown in Exhibit B,
Table T-1 shows the PM peak hour project traffic applied to the
three CMP intersections. As shown in Table 3, the proposed
project traffic at the three CMP intersections within the
project area would be less than the 51 peak hour trip threshold
for potential significant impacts to CMP intersections.
30
32Ai44
"
.~ ~
:. c
0>.9 <( I .....0..0
'C .......0 .......
-ij ...........
CO '" 0 0 ~___Q__ 0
~(/) ~ ....- "II . ~ !It =~ :rj l'l
"" - , 'i 0 liP'/
0> ~ ~""~I Of N /
.1:: I- J i.. :t:a: 0 0/00 .,_ .}>~.~ ~
.....J C> I ~ ;,::: // / O. Cl,
..c I:: Mantl bn I '" all N ~
(/):;::; e -lJ c[ N _#'~ r-'i
CO .x V1; Iy- ~
o IW i:~:;';:'-::: ./'1. '"'0/.;0"1,: Z .; -I ~,- '. .~~_ s
I \i, /,"';"'--;.-;/ 1_
r-=IS--UO-h~ L ==S=cyDfl-SI=---:
t 0 ~I ~ "? ~I ~
.?-~I:Sl-"r I d Ul r_._. ~ ~ ~
,:i Cl5I:-\'tIIQ'W - ~__ _ _ _ i l"9ht=St-
3~A5il5
0>
-
CO
U
.- U
"'C .-
I::::t::
.- CO
(/) ~
0>1-
.1:: C>
.....J I::
"'C .;::
._ 0>
--
o I::
cnw
: --.I I i- ~ - - --:'.1a:.tAO!K::l!!n~.D.Qi' I II
'I, '------- 't -----:-~-ls::.;)m:)~a
11 i It~= ..~ I r~ C~..: :t~
~ -- "'" ,
.................2:::::,~......'..~. . ~
.<:>=_~===~-Pirkcenti,.:~~ I ~ ~ ,i ~
/ ~H'IN ~ ~~)2:I=~
I ."
i.-::>-2:;->.. II 'lilt
,I,. \,". ~_
(/. .\\:='---="l '=:::.------'Q:::llPliO=-uap:rOCeJ::
,>-_/ r ~..
~----/ 0
."
'lilt
-
(.)
~'~Q)
0_
... .-
c..tn
r::
o
.-
..
~
.c
.-
<(~
.. .-
:co
.- c.
.s::: ._
>< L.
wI-
..
(.)
Q)
.~
o
L.
0.
I
,
1
0)
+-'
(0
o
"""'0
-g=
.- (0
....
~F
CO)
.- C
....J ._
"-
"'CO)
:.= +""
o C
cnw
I
' I L_ - :'JCL.M~!/CUleIUnQ!
J'I r~ - - K'~~qlQ_f\:. III
.... 11 n n_j
~ . lI" --=;'~ill'" - ...\HI:iifJe:-i'We~Qj _=
c "Oil. I SA"'-"11!6f1\l_ 11 ~ '
- - ,~-..-- I '!
---- ~-~-~~J - _ .. !" _
--~~ ~~ l . ~ ~~==-~
'~~~~~~~. .
...~f' .t" ~~Ij~~,,~
U -I\I'\N ",~~-:JI~~"
~ J. ~~"II '.
1( ,.. -I It) I' '\\
...~ 'I'
. , l't c.o II~
::;~--. IL~ ..... i
N i _
./.I'~::::;;':,__-,I ---=:="J~--"-PJ~~t, ~.~ CI)
\\ />---1 i 0 _
'. , ... .-
',:~=.;;. ~ i n. tn
~ ,
~ Ii
----Il "'r",~-=--::===::~~~,..", .....
"- --"-----~1t)_"1 _ ,
"brilto-f!af~gr-==:- ,--- ~ t
~ ~ ~/-~
h'"'"'l'!', ~,., ~. .y
i !:i I--",p~~- ,. .-::;'----': ,1,;/
- fill #-.,c; c' " ~ ii,,"',
· ... ., . -. .~""""
..7'_--- ~:...-."~_
I, ~
~J'~eo
0)
+-'
ctl
U
.-
"'C U
C '_
.- lI=
C/) ctl
0) "-
CI-
~C)
- ~
.c ._
w-
~Jj
~
I
t
'"
..
~
'"
,g
'e
~
/;:='-g
//
f<-'
1if=Wrilifil=st=
3~5~6
....,
C
CD
E
c:
en
.-
tn
tn
m<C
.....c.
.- --
..c ...
.- ....
~ ...
w 5
:J:
~
ca
(1)
c..
::E
a.
Table T-l
PM Peak Hour Intersection Project Volumes
Intersection
First Street at I-5 Southbound Ramp
Fourth Street at SR-55 Northbound Ramps
Fourth Street at SR-55 Southbound Ramps
PM Peak Hour Volume
25
17
33
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
According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan
for John Wayne Airport the project site is not located within
clear zone or accident potential zone. The proposed project is
would have a maximum height of 39-feet and would not encroach
into the height restriction criteria established in the Orange
County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with
air traffic patterns within the area or create substantial
safety risks. Additionally, implementation of the proposed
project would also not increase the level of the level of air
traffic within the project area.
D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed proj ect fronts along First Street. Along most of
the project site First Street currently is an undivided six lane
arterial. The proposed proj ect includes two points of access.
The points of access would be from Golden Circle Driveway and a
dri veway at the western end of the proj ect site. The driveway
entrance at Golden Circle is signalized and would provide safe
ingress and egress movements. The driveway entrance at the
western end is unsignalized. Left-turn westbound movements from
the proj ect si te would have to cross over three travel lanes
creating an unsafe vehicle movement. To eliminate unsafe west
bound left-turn vehicle movement, a median should be constructed
along First Street in front of the western driveway.
Mitigation Measure
. Prior
to
issuance
of
Building
Permits,
the
project
developer shall construct a ra~sed med~an along F~rst
31
3~5~7
Street from the western Driveway to the Golden Circle
Driveway.
. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the project developer
shall submit a Traffic Control Plan demonstrating how
traffic along First Street would be controlled during
construction of the median.
E. Result in inadequate emergency access
Less Than Significant Impact
As part of the City's development review process, the proposed
project was reviewed by the Police Department and the Fire
Department to ensure adequate emergency access. According the
Police Department and Fire Department no adverse emergency
access impacts would be associated with the proposed project.
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity
Less Than Significant Impact
The City's parking standards require that 140 parking spaces be
provided. The proposed project is providing 140 parking spaces.
No adverse parking impacts are anticipated.
G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not be in conflict with any City
policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Nor
would implementation of the proposed project displace any
existing modes of public transportation provided within the
project area.
XVI UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS
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 City of Santa Ana Water Department would provide domestic
water service for the proposed project. The City of Santa Ana
32
34A~8
produces water from two sources. The Orange County Groundwater
Basin provides 66% of the annual water supply and the
Metropolitan Water District provides 34% of the annual water
supply. The City of Santa Ana has 19 active wells with combined
capacities of approximately 42,500 gallons per minute. The City
also has seven MWD connections with combined normal operating
capacities of 20,700 gallons per minute. The total combined
capacity of all water production facilities is 63,200 gallons
per minute.
The California Water Management Act of 1983 requires urban water
suppliers to prepare Urban Water Management Plans to address the
water needs of a community and the ability to provide water
during normal, single dry or multiple dry years, based on land
uses and population growth reflected in the City's General Plan.
The Urban Water Management Plan is required to be updated every
five years. According to the City's 2000 Urban Water Management
Plan, the total projected water demand for the City in 2005 is
approximately 47,268 acre feet per year, which is a decrease
compared to 2000 water demand of 48,858 acre feet. According to
the City's Water Department the long-term water demand in the
City is projected decrease slightly.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the
current water demand within the project by 5,520 gallons per
day. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
and the water demands for the proposed project would be
accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan.
According to the Water Department, the increase demand
associated with the proposed project would not result in adverse
impacts on the on the ability of the City to provide water
service.
A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
C. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the providers existing commitments.
Less Than Significant Impact
33
3~9
The City of Santa Ana and the Orange County Sanitation District
would provide wastewater service to the proposed project. The
project area is currently improved with wastewater sewer
facilities. Wastewater generated from the site would be treated
at Orange County Sanitation District Reclamation Plant NO.1. in
the City of Fountain Valley. The treatment plan treats
approximately 90 million gallons per day.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the
wastewater demands in the project area by 4,600 gallons per day.
The wastewater demands of the proposed project would be
accounted for the City's Urban Water Management Plan. According
to the Water Department, this increase demand associated with
the proposed expansion could be provided without adverse
impacts.
The wastewater flows generated from the proposed project would
provide an incidental increase in the amount of wastewater flows
to the Reclamation Plant No. 1 and would have less than a
significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities.
B. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not significant
increase the amount of surface water runoff currently generated
from the project site. Onsite drainage improvements would be
needed for the project. However, these drainage improvements
would not cause significant impacts to the environment.
F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste collection
services to the project site. Solid waste is transported to the
Environmental Service transfer station in Irvine, and then taken
34
3~A~O
to the Bowerman Landfill. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to
accept 8,500 tons per day and is anticipated to close in year
2024.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
mandates all cities and counties in California to divert fifty
percent of solid waste generated from landfill disposal. As part
of the General Plan, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element, which describe how the City
complies with the mandates of AB 939. In order to comply with
the requirements of AB 939, the City has implemented several
waste reduction programs including green waste programs, source
reduction programs, and recycling programs.
Based on solid waste generation rate of 6.0 pounds per day per
1000 square feet of office area, the proposed project would
generate an additional 138 pounds per day of solid waste. The
increases in solid waste would be considered minor in comparison
to the 8,500 tons of solid waste taken to the Bowerman Landfill
daily. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to
comply with the City's waste reduction programs to reduce the
demand for solid waste disposal. Compliance with the City's
recycling program would reduce long-term solid waste disposal
service impacts to a level considered less than significant.
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.
Less than Significant
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, in that no fish
or wildlife populations are known to exist on the project site,
and the probability for discovery of unknown resources would be
low.
B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable?
35
3ZA-sS1
Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would result in
cumulative impacts to the environment. However, the proposed
project's incremental contribution would not be considered
cumulatively consiperable because the proposed project would
comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building
code, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which
provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant
cumulative impacts within the project area. Furthermore, the
incremental impacts associated with the proposed project would
be at a level where there would not be considered cumulatively
considerable.
C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either
directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing
museum. Construction and operation of the proposed project would
not involve any activities that would cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential
impacts to the environment and human beings to a level
considered less than significant.
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 Updated General Plan Land Use Element February
1998.
City of Santa Ana Updated General Plan Land Use Element
Environmental Impact, January, 1998, SCH 97071058
City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998
City of Santa Ana Urban Design Element, July 6, 1998
36
3~~2
City Santa Ana Local Register of Historic Structures
City Santa Ana National Register of Historic Structures
Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 060232027H
Personal Communication Santa Ana Water Department, October 2005
City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee, April 2005
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, 1993
California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines,
January 1999
Congestion Management Plan Screening Analysis, P&D Consultants,
July 2005
Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, October 2005
City of Santa Ana Master Environmental Assessment, 1998
City of Santa Ana 2000 Urban Water Management Plan
xx. PRE PARERS
Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator
37
3ZA~3
an~~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
PLANNING DIVISION
I. Project Title: First Street Medical Building
III.
II. Project Numbers: ER.2005-38
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: 2000 East First Street
Environmental Determination
A. 0
On the basis of this initial evaiuation, I find that:
B. ft(
c.D
0.0
E. 0
F. 0
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 infonnation of substantial importance will cause one
or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.
Signature
October 6. 2005
Date
Printed Name
db\Env Form CEQA Chktst
324sa54
Page 1 Df 1
rnY~~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No 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, inciuding 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 Impacr' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacr' 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 Impacr' to a "Less than Significant Impacr'.
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefiyexplain 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 substantiai adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 M
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 )E{
to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings
within a state highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ~
or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views M
in the area? 0 0 0
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32A~55
Page 1 of 12
rnm~ANfA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricuitural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project:
A.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to
non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program in the California Resources
Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains
detailed maps of these and other categories of
farmland.)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
~
~
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
Wiiliamson Contract?
C.
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their iocation or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in ioss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
A.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion
Management Plan?
B_
Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
C.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emission which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
D_
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pOllutant
concentrations?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32&056
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
f8f
'1l!
o
~
o
o
o
Page 2 of 12
~'^
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
E_
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. Biological Resources - Would the project:
A
Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
B.
Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian
habitat or natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
C_
Adversely impact federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination
with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling hydrological
interruption, or other means?
D_
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
V. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
A.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
B.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
C.
Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontogical resource or site?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32AnS7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
)(
o
o
o
o
o
j.(
~
No
Impact
o
~
)(
~
~
~
o
o
Page 3 of 12
rnm~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
E.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. Biological Resources - Would the project:
A.
Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
B.
Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian
habitat or natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
C.
Adversely impact federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc_) either individually or in combination
with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling hydrological
interruption, or other means?
D.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
V. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
A.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
B.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
C.
Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontogical resource or site?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32A~58
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
Ar
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
)(
No
Impact
D
t(
J(
jg{
Jt\
~
D
D
Page 3 of 12
rnm~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
D.
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project:
A.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1. Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
2_ Strong seismic ground shaking?
3_ Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4_ Landslides?
B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature?
D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
E_ Where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32Ai,s9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
tit
o
~
~
X
o
o
o
~
o
No
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
j;(
o
)(
Page 4 of 12
rnm~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project:
A
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
B_
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
C.
Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
D.
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles where of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
A
Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
B.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (I.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
AT~~5jroB
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
;{
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
%L
)(
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
o
~
)(
o
A
Page 5 of 12
mY~~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
D. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted run-off?
E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
F. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
G_ Place within a 100-year flooqplain 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 typicai 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
AT~~5if1 B
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
)Q
~
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
)zf
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
K
No
Impact
o
o
o
x
>>
)(
o
o
o
o
Page 6 of 12
rnY~~ANfA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact
to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow
rates or volumes?
N. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as
listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list: If
so, can it result in an Increase in any pollutant of
which the water body is already impaired?
O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas?
If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive
conditions?
P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact
on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or
wetland waters?
Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable
surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
S_ Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project:
A.
Physically divide an established community?
B.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C.
Confiict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
X. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
A.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
AT~'ir2 B
o
o
o
f:
o
jld.
o
k1.
o
o
o
~
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
)!!
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
f(
o
o
o
o
A
)(
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Page 7 of 12
rn1~~ANfA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
XI. Noise - Would the project result in:
A.
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
B.
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c.
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
D.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase In
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without project?
E.
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. Population and Housing - Would the project:
A.
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and business) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
B.
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c.
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Fonn CEQA Chklst
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
Impact
)(
>Q
)(
D
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
)(
D
>
)(
~
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Page 8 of 12
ATTACHMENT B
32&63
rnm~ANfA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
XIII. Public Services
A.
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmentai
facilities, the construction of which couid 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.
Wouid the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
B.
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. Transportation I Traffic
A.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (I.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicie trips, the
volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at
intersections?)
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
32~864
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Significant
Impact
o
;g
~
,.k
J5(
~
~
~
~
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page 9 of 12
QTI~~ANTA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
B.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C.
Result In a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantiai 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 wh ich 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
ATTACHMENT B
3~5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
x
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
j(
D
D
~
,k.
~
~
Jif--
~
9(
~
No
Impact
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Page 10 of 12
rnm~ANfA
ANA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
sold waste disposal needs?
G. Compiy with federal, state and iocal 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, substantialiy reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife popuiation 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 eiiminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
B.
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulativeiy 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 ChkJst
AT~2A5~6 B
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
r:i--
~
~
J(
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Page11of12
First Street Medical Building
Mitigation Monitoring Program ER 2005-38
Mitigation Measure Agency I Approval
Prior to Grading Permits
Grading plans for the proposed Planning/Building
project shall reflect the
following notes:
All material excavated or
graded will be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust. Watering with
complete coverage shall occur
at least twice daily, once in
the late morning and once after
work is done for the day.
All clearing and earthwork
activities shall cease during
period of high winds (winds
greater than 25 mph averaged
over one hour) or during Stage
1 or Stage 2 smog episodes.
Streets surrounding the project
site should be cleaned at the
end of each day of
construction.
All material transported
offsite shall either be
sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
The amount of area disturbed by
clearing and earthwork
activities shall be minimized
at all times.
Equipment engines shall be
maintained in good condition
and in proper tune according to
manufacturer's specifications.
3~~7
Prior to issuance of grading Planning/Building
permits the project developer
shall prepare and submit for
approval a geotechnical report
that addresses seismic
constraints, soil stability and
provides design recommendation
to insure the geotechnical
stability of the project site.
Prior to the issuance of Public Works
grading permits, the project
developer shall show proof of
coverage under NPDES General
Industrial Activity Storm Water
Permit, which includes a copy
of the project's permit issued
by the State Water Resource
Control Board that identifies
the permit number.
Prior to the issuance of a Public Works
grading permit the applicant
shall submit for review and
approval a surface
drainage/grading plan/erosion
control plan, prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer,
showing the direction and means
of flow to adjacent streets.
The plan is to include existing
and proposed elevations at and
adjacent to all property lines.
Drainage routed to the street
must be directed beneath the
sidewalk and through the curb.
Prior to issuance of grading Planning/Building
permits the project developer
shall prepare and submit for
approval a geotechnical report
that addresses seismic
constraints, soil stability and
provides design recommendation
to insure the geotechnical
3~.8
stability of the project site.
Prior to the issuance of Public Works
grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide proof
of coverage under NPDES General
Industrial Activity Storm Water
Permit, which includes a copy
of the project permit number
issued by the State Water
resource Control Board.
Prior to the issuance of Public Works
grading permits the project
developer shall submit for
review and approval a surface
drainage/grading/erosion
control plan, prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer,
showing the direction and means
of flow to the adjacent street.
The plan is to include existing
and proposed elevations at and
adjacent to all property lines.
Drainage routed to the street
must be directed beneath the
sidewalk and through the curb.
Prior to the issuance of Public Works
grading permits, the project
applicant shall prepare an
NPDES post-construction storm
water management plan per
Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) that
includes all structural and
non-structural Best Management
Practices for the project.
Prior to the issuance of Public Works
grading permits the project
developer shall submit and have
approved a surface
drainage/utility plan that
depicts all applicable Site
Design, structural Source
Control and Treatment Control
BMPs in accordance with the
3~9
KO - 4/5/06
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM AND A TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 2005-11 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2000 EAST FIRST STREET
(COUNTY MAP NO. 16916)
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 Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11
(County Map No. 16916) to subdivide two medical office buildings into 24
condominium units at 2000 East First Street.
B. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed
public hearing on April 10, 2006.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana determines that the
following findings have been established:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and
improvements are consistent with the Professional and
Administrative Office land use designation of the General Plan and
are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan
and any applicable specific plans.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Professional
and Administrative Office land use designation and all other
elements of the General Plan. Policy 5.4 of the Land Use
Element supports land uses which are consistent with the
land Use Plan of the Land Use Element. This project is not
located within any specific plan area of the city.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable
requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other
applicable City ordinances.
The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms with all
provisions of the zoning code, including landscaping,
setbacks, parking, lot size and frontage. No variances are
required for the project. Existing infrastructure in the area
32A-70
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 1 of 8
will be upgraded to service the project including new paving,
sewer and water lines. Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required for the project which need
to be approved by the City prior to City Council approval of
the final map.
3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed project.
The proposed site is physically suitable for the professional
office development as proposed since it currently has street
frontage on First Street. The proposed project would have
two points of access; the primary point of entry would be a
private driveway easement at a signalized intersection at the
Golden Circle Drive. The second point of access to the site
would be from a driveway located at the western end of the
project site. A total of 140 parking spaces will be provided
on site. The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 28 percent,
below the 50 percent permitted under the General Plan
Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) land use
designation.
4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared
pursuant to the Califomia Environment Quality Act. The
project site is located in an urbanized area, there are no
known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any
substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause
serious public health problems.
The proposed subdivision will not have any detrimental
effects upon the general public. The project will incorporate
sewer, water and other necessary infrastructure
improvements as conditioned in Development Project
Review No. 2005-58.
6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict
with easements necessary for public access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
The design or improvements of the proposed project will not
conflict with easements necessary for public access through
or use of the property within the proposed project since
public access will be provided from First Street. First Street
32A-71
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 2 of 8
is an arterial street that was constructed according to City
specifications.
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. 2005-38, 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 Califomia 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, Califomia Code of Regulations ("CCR") ~ 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 ~ 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR ~ 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game
Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 3. The Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby
approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11 (County Map No. 16916) as conditioned in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 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 April 10, 2006 and exhibits attached
thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 10th day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Cribb, De La Torre, Leo, Lutz,
Rodriguez (6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Gartner (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
32A-72
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 3 of8
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. 2006-006 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on April 1 0, 2006.
Date:
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Santa Ana
32A-73
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 4 of 8
CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005.11
(COUNTY MAP NO. 16916)
Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-11 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 approval.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the tentative parcel map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the tentative tract map.
A. Plannina Division
1. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required prior to final
map approval addressing operational standards, common area
maintenance, drainage, architecture, parking, circulation. The CC&Rs
shall be recorded with the final map.
2. Two copies of the recorded final parcel map and CC&Rs shall be
submitted each to the Planning Division, Building Division and Public
Works Agency within 10 days of recordation.
3. A maximum of three wall signs are permitted for this building, including
one primary and two secondary wall signs. A sign plan shall be submitted
and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
4. The tentative tract map, final map and all improvements required to be
made or installed by the subdivider shall be in accordance with the
requirements and design standards and specifications of the City of Santa
Ana and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act.
5. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained in accordance
with the landscape plan approved for the project. This shall include the
minimum levels of plant materials shown on the landscape plan and
installed at the time of occupancy.
Mitiaation Measures
6. All materials excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amount of dust. Watering with complete coverage shall occur
Exhibit A
32A-74
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 5 ot 8
at least twice daily, once in the late morning and once after work is done
for the day.
7. 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.
8. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of each
day of construction.
9. All materials transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
10. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be
minimized at all times.
11. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall prepare
and submit for approval a geotechnical report that addresses seismic
constraints, soil stability and provides design recommendation to insure
the geotechnical stability of the project site.
13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide
proof of coverage under an NPDES General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit, which includes a copy of the project number and two copies
of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
14. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review
and approval a surface drainage/grading plan/erosion control plan,
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means
of flow to adjacent streets. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the
street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
15. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare an
NPDES post-construction storm water management plan per Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices.
16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit and have
approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable site
design, structural source control and treatment control BMPs in
accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan
and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan.
32A-75
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 6 ot8
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide two
copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that includes site
assessment, site design BMPs, applicable routine Source control BMPs,
selection and sizing of the Treatment Control BMPs, funding mechanisms
for long-term operation and maintenance and an operation and
Maintenance Plan.
18. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall provide payment
of City of Santa Ana Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fees.
19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall construct
a raised median along First Street from the western driveway to the
Golden Circle Driveway.
20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a
Traffic Control Plan demonstrating how traffic along First Street would be
controlled during construction of the median.
32A-76
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 7 of 8
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.
[ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the
addressee(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
32A-77
Resolution No. 2006-006
Page 8 of 8
32A-78