The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75B - PH 1501 W MACARTHUR BLVDREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2008 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-O1, AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2008-02 AND VARIANCE NO. 2008-03 TO ALLOW TWO NEW RETAIL BUILDINGS AT 1501 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD - SAPETTO GROUP, APPLICANT C TY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15f Reading ^ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008-02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On March 24, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-O1; adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008-02 and adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned by a vote of 4:0 (Betancourt, Gartner and Munoz absent) to allow the construction of two new buildings within an existing retail center at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. 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. J y Trevino Executive Director Planning and Building Agency VF:rb vf/reports/aa08-02&gpa08-O1&va08-03.cc 75B-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MARCH 24, 2008 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY THE SAPETTO GROUP FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-01, AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2008-02 AND VARIANCE NO. 2008-03 TO ALLOW TWO NEW RETAIL BUILDINGS AT 1501 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Prepared by Vince Fregoso Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO ~~-~- Planning Manage 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008-02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant The Sapetto Group, representing MHI Real Company, is requesting a general plan amendment, amendment application and variance to allow the construction of two new buildings within an existing retail center at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a zone change to rezone the project site to General Commercial (C-2), a general plan amendment to change the land use designation to General Commercial (GC) with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and a variance to allow a reduction in the front yard setback. Property Description The project site is a 2.57-acre parcel of land located near the northwest corner of Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. The site is currently occupied by two buildings constructed in 1978: an 1,800 square foot Der Weinerschnitzel restaurant with drive-through service and a 10,957 square . ~. ~ t LL~ General Plan Amendment No. 2008-O1 Amendment Application No. 2008-02 Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 2 foot retail building. The vacant west section of the site was formerly occupied by a full service car wash that operated from 1978 until it was demolished in November 2006. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MR-15) and is located within the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district. The property is surrounded by multi-family residential uses to the north and west, commercial and multi-family residential to the south, and office and commercial to the east (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Project Description The project involves the construction of two new retail buildings within an existing retail center. The first building will be a one-story, 6,146 square foot structure that will be located immediately west of the existing retail building. The second building will be approximately 4,200 square feet in size and will be located at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. This building is planned for restaurant and similar food related uses and will incorporate an outdoor dining amenity into its design (Exhibits 4 and 5). The existing retail building will also be remodeled to match the architectural design of the two new buildings. A contemporary design theme has been proposed by the developer, with elements such as stacked stone veneer, metal awnings and standing seam metal roofing to be utilized throughout the project (Exhibit 6). Site improvements are proposed on the site that includes decorative paving at the vehicle driveways and pedestrian pathways, restriping and reslurrying of the parking lot, and the replacement of missing plant materials and the installation of new landscape planters (Exhibit 7). Analysis of the Issues The retail center has been at this location since 1978. Additionally, the site contained the Beacon Bay Car Wash, which operated on the west side of the site until it was demolished in late 2006. The applicant is proposing to construct two retail buildings on the vacant site that are intended to attract community oriented retail uses. 75B-3 General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 Amendment Application No. 2008-02 Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 3 The existing Medium Density Residential (MR) general plan designation prohibits the use of the site for retail purposes. To allow the project to proceed, three actions are needed. First, a general plan amendment to General Commercial (GC) is required. Additionally, an amendment application must also be approved to change the zoning of the subject property from Two-Family Residential to General Commercial (C-2). Finally, a variance to allow a reduction in the front yard setback is needed. The proposal will assist in supporting various goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. First, the project will assist in promoting a balance of land uses that address community needs, as the residences in the area will be provided with an additional commercial center to serve the southern area of the City. Second, the project will promote land uses, such as restaurants and retail uses, which will enhance the economic and fiscal viability of the City through an increase in property and sales taxes. Finally, the project will preserve and improve the character of the surrounding neighborhood through the numerous improvements proposed for the site including building design, signage, parking lot enhancements and landscaping (Exhibit 8). A zone change to commercial is also required for the site. The project site is located near two major arterial streets that provide ease of access and egress into the site. Although the site is currently zoned to allow a Two-Family residential development such as duplexes, the site has historically been used as a commercial site. Given a need to provide additional niche retail and restaurant uses that are easily accessible and walkable from the surrounding residential developments, a zone change is a viable option for the site. If the zone change is not approved, the vacant one acre parcel to the west would not be a large enough parcel to construct a viable residential project. Finally, the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from 15 feet to 10 feet. Section 41-369 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a 15- foot landscaped setback where a property abuts a public street. However, due to a lot size reduction caused by an eight-foot offer to dedicate on MacArthur Boulevard and the configuration of the existing building and parking lot on the east side of the parcel, the applicant has been unable to comply with the setback standard. 75B-4 General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 Amendment Application No. 2008-02 Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 4 The City has requested an eight-foot irrevocable offer to dedicate along MacArthur Boulevard for a future westbound travel/right turn lane at Plaza Drive. Until this lane is constructed, an 18-foot landscaped setback will be provided. The application of the zoning code to require a 15-foot setback would result in an adverse impact to the on-site circulation pattern of the project and would result in a loss of 23 parking spaces. To mitigate the reduction in the landscape setback, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the size of the trees within the front yard setback to a minimum 36-inch box size. On March 10, 2008, a public hearing on the project was held by the Planning Commission. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Commission continued the item to allow staff time to research noise and traffic related issues. Noise impacts are not expected from the proposed project since the primary generator of noise (if any) is anticipated to be from the outdoor dining area adjacent to Building Three. To mitigate potential noise impacts, this building has been located approximately 150 feet from the residences to the north, with the outdoor seating area at the south end of the property and away from the residences. Further, no uses are proposed to operate late in the evening. A conditional use permit will be required if any retail and/or restaurant use intends to operate after 12:00 a.m. Traffic related issues were also analyzed for this project. During the peak morning and evening hours, approximately 130 hourly vehicle trips are expected from the center, which is typical for this type and size of retail center. To address issues raised regarding signalization timing at Plaza Drive, the Public Works Agency verified that the pavement loops on MacArthur Boulevard are properly operating. Further, the intersection timing of the signals has being analyzed and the timing refined to optimize overall operations of MacArthur Boulevard traffic signals while minimizing the waiting time for vehicles on Plaza Drive. Finally, to address the signage issue raised at the hearing, staff is requiring the submittal of a sign program for the center. This will ensure that future signage is sophisticated and conveys a sense of high quality. The Gateway Plaza retail center expansion will contribute to the long- term benefit of the neighborhood. The development of this site will allow the construction of buildings that are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Further, the site will be upgraded to meet or exceed landscaping development standards. Additionally, the project, as conditioned, will not create adverse impacts or be detrimental to the site or neighborhood. Therefore, based upon an 75B-5 General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 Amendment Application No. 2008-02 Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 5 analysis of the project and the project's compatibility with the City's General Plan and applicable development standards, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Amendment Application No. 2008-02, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 and Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned (Exhibits 9 and 10). CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. The Mitigation Negative Declaration has been circulated for a 20-day public review period, which will run from March 10 through March 31. The report identifies potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures that reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The report identified no noise related impacts resulting from the commercial development and less than significant traffic impacts from the project. Although an increase in traffic trips will be generated from the site, the existing arterial highway system (MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street) will not be impacted. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73 will be filed for this project (Exhibit 11). ~~ Vince Fr oso, CP Principal ner VF:jm vf/reports/aa08-02&gpa08-01&va08-03.032408.pc 75B-6 R7- PRD a R1- a PRD w ,: 6 R7- U PRD e UUUUL_ C ~l~ C i t y Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL Ct-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL o / C o s t a C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -F FLOOR AREA RATIO GC GOVERNMENT CENTER M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MO MILITARY OPERATIONS O OPEN SPACE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE P PROFESSIONAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M e s a PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SP SPECIFIC PLAN AA 08-2/GPA 08-1NA 08-3 ~ GATEWAY PLAZA 1501 WEST MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD ~ - - = 500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP 7[^~I~T 1 M U L T I \ \ ~~ C O M M E R C I A L F A IL- 1 L Y ~ J R E S I D E N T I A L '~ U W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q _ ',~,~~~ 8 ~ O ~~ J a MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD MULTI ; FAMILY ~ RESIDENTIAL J a C O M M E R C I A L N J N m ~ ~ AA 08-2/G PA 08-1 NA 08-3 GATEWAY PLAZA ~~,`, 1501 WEST MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75B-8 M U L T I ~ C M M E R C I A L F A I L Y ~ J R E S I D E N T I A L '~ V W W ~ ~ N > t ~ J Q ~sJ ~'.I ~ ~ ~ N ~ ' 4 J 4 } ` - W a s MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD MULTI ; FAMILY ~ 0 C O M M E R C 1 A L RESIDENTIAL N Q J a AA 08-2/G PA 08-1 NA 08-3 ~ GATEWAY PLAZA ~, 1501 WEST MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y ZONING MAP EXHIBIT 3 75B-9 ` ~ la ~ viNao~nv~'vrav virrcs'3niaavmdsaavna~noe an av~vw ~~ 3;y~ ~~ ~ ~ ;n;g^s9 ~~ I ''~' Q '~=; ~ i13.LNHJ'IIV.L32I Q3SOdO2Id I~ ~ ~ : r~ ' ~`s g ~..a sg a n n / I \ €~ syx ll..__ I ao a483 mg~9 8e a Ba & _- - a o ° m amn "eG9 YA °& °F _ -- on e '=z a g I ° ~~--- ~ s ~ ° ~ _ ~aox s~L ~ Ie?Bo I`a I~'E IQ°x s€ __ ~ - e " _»° - ", „ a i g ~ ~ `~ o ~s9 ~s~g~€&x eE ~~§ s ~ - '. it I _. - / a8v E o %. eb '^~°" of $°$ g K 2SRE '~ ~- ~/ =`E „ @ ?Sg3 =~~Y4 $Cu Ee Y53~fl dga=y_ ~'~ ; ~~ °dL _ 8 'r xqa ~"~~&a "E"°s`~a A°=o,ny" ~ ; ..,. ~, "io 2yA °gxa - _`S,~s~ E;xx~Y%~~v p ~d °t__._ _ °F~ A~ a~ Y -E~wy4 °se $.LEr9 .e ~ 5,°`®'ae~`A` i I I.. = e~ Sao .ESA::&o a€~ _ s~ °~@~`~„ ~ oo€x ~sv~g~~a~="A%pE€`4°d€d u~.o%°E ~x ~~ ~~ I --- a ~ _ i `1 1~ _ s ~ 0 0 0 0~ o o ~ u i ~ o ~pi~~ ~ ~{~ ~_ ~ ~ o~ ~ I i ~. iii -_ sib I ,~ I z~ > I 0 ICI I m I~ „ _ E „ ~~ m 0 " ~l u" . „ R~ a' e° ew - ~ „: na OraB ASS 8 ~~ _ ~ _ l~ ii ~~~~~.~ ~~aa~-~~~e „ ~% ~~ dw «.~ '° a~nn `~ ~ ~~ 3 E"C° m~ & k. s € ~ xaz ~ 4A~ ~r ~ 4 e o ~~ ~z .Eon ~~ enp ~5. pySE Y. 4nC ~7 ~~6~a ~~ $~~:p o9l ~dgaa ~ ap~E E u LL9_ '~. F ~o ¢a a „ w z " mu rtY m ¢ii E`en ¢~' •`pi •' 4v o. °n - __ eg s~ 8~~~wLLa= s Sig sa I ~ ~ ~ `Ua$~s:a~~x~ex-° gg~E~so I.~gga58 ` ,___ ~ `. 7 €~.e~aA€ € I i ~. w U~^Fm m_€€'F=~E d^ o ~e°p~8 &`~°~~: i e> r ati an 3o AOS Cx '€;Pe&^mb? 5 } _ g~ i ~ - ~ ti D U m ,, m e ~, e t b -. _ -- ~~ 4'I s :` }- .. ~ e 2 ~ a .X c ._ n "moo s R ~i ~~~ of ~ ~~ ~" ~Z ~~8 ~ ~__ 1~ _ -__ mm m _I m .o> d~ ~ a e !_~ II~'el~~Is II ~Ih _ ~_ _ °pffi qq ~O 'bk yb~ yy ~ - - ~.LP m 4&omwrc Ggomr~wa agomzn egomwa ~ - ~r+~ ~ E - g B „_ ~ g ~9 _ __- F^ 4X ' _ ~g _ " - u ~ 4 .m m 0 ~ e .. - - - _ a° pp n ~9 so fs? - "b n °• n8 a°= °a°a' - 'ooa~ - a°a` Win` - a~m'3' u _ ___ a 'a _ C _ag°<",. __ '€'a~~ m~°«. ~m_ ~' -- __-'- I ~ ~~ I ~ 31 ~ ~ z _ a' Q ~ '! J = (Z }i; a' Q W - ` ~- II \, (~ ~' I e II : ~ i - II U I ~ 1i `_ . an. . 1 .ova w&~ ~~' {~ ,: r ~; ii AA 08-2/GPA 08-1/' VA 08-3 EXHIBIT 4 i i -- -- -- vi '~tiaa vrna aavn~n a a -- ~ ~ ~ I ~I B A M ~t ~~ Q TI3.LN3J'Idtl.L32I Q3SOdO~Id ~ i ~~;~ s V E y F ~E 22 1 ~ ~ 3 ~ w s w a m v ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ A _ ~ e e ~ E ~ P E ~~~ u~ g t _g ~ H ~ E L• E ~ ~ g a z a .. 8~_ ~, y w LL u z_~ x ~ s c o c ,•3-~~ • +'.i L> x ~tU,e a -- :v +..~~ 1 - ~.. ~~~~. ~). r,, FYr~ JY %.: Y~4 5 ~• ~~ _ - ~`r- •',_'... ~ ~- (`~~ .`a~.a Gr__ _~_e C ~ }~ - O ___ .> N W L Z N C ' O 4 r n~~_.' _ - C `. U X m C O R W r O§ c` 'p ~C LIl ~I C R O 4 - '~ l0 LL N _ _ r~ I W C' v ~ ' N W Q ~ ~ ~ S ~ 0 ~ I 4 yt ~ sta a x - t ~ C .. m S ~ I. C3 ~ m S rVIJIt7tT C a i~omn~ -so do ~` /L-80 t/dJ2-8011b~ ' ~ R~ -- so a~ -- ~o x~ ~~` `~ ~~ k~ x x~ - „~ o _._ ... D - j ? ~~ _. (U ~ ~ G - _ _.. N -, __-. -_- ~+^'~ __, :.Y - - - 'j~( `~ n' Y. ~~~ ~~J~ .. h JE _......_ LLL-I_ -- r' .. z~,-0. `, f 1~1 ar-r - ~ v ~" - -- ss-r ffiW X ~. 7 N T p i ; r ~c ~- - s p m m o p m a O o my_ y_ m a x a w_ m L r ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a 3 ~ ~ d S .2 `- ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ m 3 3 ~_ ~ 'n ~ 3 _ S n ~ w ~~ 3 Z. C ~ _ 3 q:q ~ ~. tl m a ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ a a ~ ~ 3 N 3 3 B q~ i ~, i i~_~ `. C ~;~~ j PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER .=~c~ ~ ~_so; c B-12 u yr v a in a nu v I I ~ $ s'S?9 I ~ ~ ~ In .~,-„~ i gj,yaxx 9n4i==~ ~' 9i .3; . „ 2I3.LN3J'IIt+.L3~1 Q3SOdO~Id i ~~ a~~~$ai ~ I ~lli „o-,6s E R ~' € ~ ~ ~ E g E E y ~ ~ 8 ~ ,~ g a ~ a' r d io ~~ c E ~ u v r C 9 E 3 • $ $ C 5 ~.~ u e ., c _.______________________._~Ta __. _.___ £ ~ $ ~ ~ E d r ~7 ~ _ ~ ~ -'$ m o m x E _ g s a" g ~ a a ~, .. ~ a b > ~ $ q ~ E S e E O g < m ~' ~ ~ v E c E E ~ i M g _ _ ~ a" ~ r _ ~ 4 _'u ~ y E E 9 .9 b~ ~ .4 ,n - - LL - h - ~ C g h a x a r m =p $ w ~ .. a m ~ o w LL u ~_~ Y ~ s m9 L L „0-,L9 1, ~ `: o. x~ t <<z rr`y~ ,, , ~; _. ~~- _ _- ~ ~~ ~; ~, --- ggg ~ _ n ri~ 4 ~ ~ ; 7 I _ ~'~_.. ~ .... ' ~ `~ 1 ' ~ :: f ~ i __._ ~- ~- - ~ -- __ - .- ~ - -- ~ _ __ i W - - - r _. - ~__ ~'F N __ m W ~.: ~-- ~ _.. r _ > C ~ ~ e ~ 'C _ ` ~ - W 4 ..`~\. a~i4 4r cGb ab W ~ ~ ?N __ ~._ __,~ X75 .~__$ .5. '..: ~:- ~s ': ~ ~~~-- €F3! I d -1 4~ ~„ ~ -~ _~ ~ 'I F- J Z J a F¢- LIJ (7 Z __ Q a a U a -' r . ' ,,,~ 3 ! ! ! s a s' 33 !f!! I d K }! t t !! !!!' t t 1 1 i i y ~ lii ~ i 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ i' ~ ! i l!~II~ ~ Il~j i i # if l l ! ~l 1 .: F ~~ s~ F, F> :k AA 08-2/GPA 08-1~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ e~ ~~d VA 08-3 EXHIBIT 7 ' `` n M~. • 1 ~ ~ + Z g ~ ,~ ~ ~, ~: W a a..f a U , ~ j t~,:~ , ~ ~ J - i i ~I ~ j ~ i ~A ~ v~''w ' i U Q 1 ~ ', „y I ~, __ - one f '~, s J ~~a_ is ~~ ~- i+ I .o <s c', i - i o I A' ...- ~.,. __ _. o e } ~ ~ ~\` ~ i6 LAND USE ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2, 1998 The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997-05): GPA 2008-01 (Adopfion Date), GPA 2007-02 (June 18, 2007), GPA 2006-01 (October 2, 2006), GPA 2005-01 (December 5, 2005), GPA 2005-02 (October 17, 2005), GPA 2004-01 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana), GPA 2004-04 (July 19, 2004), GPA 2004-06 (July 6, 2004), GPA 2003-02 (June 16, 2003), GPA 2003-01 (February 18, 2003), GPA 2002-01 (September 3, 2002), GPA 2002-03 (August 19, 2002), GPA 2001-03 (February 19, 2002), GPA 2001-02 (January 7, 2002), GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001), GPA 2000-08 (February 5, 2001), GPA 2000-03 (December 4, 2000), GPA 2000-02 (November 20, 2000), GPA 1999-02 (October 18, 1999), GPA 1999-01 (August 16, 1999), GPA 1998-04 (October 5, 1998), GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998), GPA 1998-01 (May 4, 1998). AA 08-2/G PA 08-1 / 7~~5 ,-. ~ ~ w !, ., ~ ~ f~ 9 j N ° m v Y' a X 6 C _ ~ ~ m b W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ c v~ ~ W C N D L' C U U T rn ~ ~ s E ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ c 3 a ~ @ ~ ~ V ~ w ~ g 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ o V~ J fA S .~. ~ C C O O av O '(•~ ~. ~ ~ °J ~ f a~ tv7 rZ+ ~ O ~ i O T 75B-16 N O N O O N O O O _a ~~n ouSo .~-,~o v~iYnooo~no ~ ~I~ f }~ '~A y~ ~ V ' Q S 3 _ .~. ~ N .- .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ 1 A A~, T / W L A• ~+ L 5 ~~ u '9 e5 ~ Q LL ~ z - ` a Q Q~ W ~ O ~ LL ~ _ g A , a~ ~ 3 E ~ 2 S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` a 4 s g N ~ , VJ u.. $ ~ ~ ~ v a ~~ ~ m € g ~ g m m :S :o r ~ : ~'~ 'osvvia°0 . °s 'rc' ` ~ f ~ ~ !n . oe n ov ~ ° ~ .~ ~ .S ~ n ~ a A ~ c~o $:~c ~oFCt°'a°qSa~ z ..V~q ° ~ 9 ~ J • C , ~~ ~ ~~ -. c~ o a a .., ~ F ~^ C o v° u~ ~ °~~E~ °w 8 U U '^ , ~ O a V ? ~ Z p x 3v ~~ci a Vi a b .0 5~,~'~oy4.s S.s€`m~~~rv~Ss~uuu ~ ~ . E ~ $; c FG „ ~ t ! r' , I i ~ ~ , a` EUZ°i EZ(J~U~OXiimrv~a~tAEf lid .-r.AY~A ~Eriabdd~N~S~~A ~L~aOT°rvNl~`IN ~ ~ i tz-~ N Q / . `~A M 75B-17 LAND USE ELEMENT • To encourage lot consolidation for optimal site design, the floor area ratio can be calculated on an area wide basis for contiguous parcels which are part of a large, multi-structure project. • To qualify for an area wide floor area ratio calculation, a project must be integrated in design and function, and the owner/developer must record deed restrictions limiting the project area to the legally allowed floor area ratio. Land Use Designations The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes 11 land use designations. These designations indicate the types and intensity of development to be allowed on the property which they cover. Generally, the designation also reflects the predominant development character of the area. As is typical in older, urbanized communities like Santa Ana, there are some areas where existing development does not completely reflect the land use designation of the Land Use Plan. Where these occur the properties are deemed legal conforming and may continue until such time as the property has been vacant for twelve months or more. Each land use designation and a brief description are discussed below. Residential The Land Use Plan provides for three distinct residential land use designations. Residential development is also permitted in two other designations: District Center and Residential/Industrial. The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes the following residential land use designations: • The Low Density Residential (LR-7) designation applies to those areas of the City which are developed with lower density residential land uses. The allowable maximum development intensity is 7 units per acre. Development in this category is characterized primarily by single-family homes. This designation applies to a large proportion of the City (6,474.5 acres) representing 47 percent of the City's total land area. • The Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at permitted densities of up to 11 units per acre. The land area included in this designation is approximately 443 433.8 acres. The great majority of the land designated as Low-Medium Density Residential is located in the westerly portion of the City, north and south of First Street. Properties with this designation are typically characterized by mobile Revised (Adoption Date)) A~~ B ~ 1 8 LAND USE ELEMENT home parks, a mixture of duplexes and single family residences, or small lot subdivisions. • The Medium Density Residential (MR-15) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at densities of up to 15 units per acre. Development in this designation is characterized by duplexes, apartments, or a combination of both. A total of 4a-A 413.2 acres is designated as Medium Density Residential. The designation applies to areas located in the vicinity of downtown, areas north and south of MacArthur Boulevard, and in other areas where there are established multiple-family development projects. • The Residential /Industrial designation permits either residential development up to 15 units per acre or industrial uses. The designation applies to the Logan neighborhood, which was established near the turn of the century. Since the 1930s, this 18.5-acre area has developed with a mixture of residential and industrial uses. • The District Center designation permits residential development up to 90 units per acre when it is a component of a mixed-use, master planned project. In the Metro East District Center residential density is based on a maximum 3.0 floor area ratio and the overlay development standards. This category includes approximately 427 acres and is described in greater detail later in this section. Professional and Administrative Office The Professional/Administrative office (PAO) designation applies to those areas where professional and/or administrative offices are predominant, or where such development is being encouraged. Land included in this designation is found primarily near the Civic Center, and along the First Street and Tustin Avenue Corridors in close proximity to freeways. There are other smaller PAO areas in the City such as along North Broadway and along portions of east and west Seventeenth Street. A total of 621.5 acres is included in this land use designation. The floor area ratio intensity standard applicable to this land use designation ranges from 0.5 to 1.0. The Professional and Administrative Office areas are intended to provide a unique environment for office development in those areas of the City where office uses are the predominant land use. The purpose for maintaining and supporting these areas exclusively for office and office-related uses is to encourage major employment centers at locations which significantly lessen the impact to the City's local street system. The First Street/Tustin Avenue Revised (Adoption Date) A-18 75B-19 LAND USE ELEMENT office corridor between the Santa Ana (I-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways serves this purpose. In addition, the orderly, well-maintained quality of existing development supports a continuation of these areas as functional office/employment centers. The Professional and Administrative Office designation includes a range of floor area ratios to differentiate development intensity and character in relation to adjacent land uses. The areas with a FAR of 0.5 are not major office centers, but rather have an established character of lower intensity garden office and professional service uses. These areas are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses. Office development along East Fourth Street, between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, is typical of this low-rise office character. The PAO area located adjacent to the Civic Center contains a range of office development intensity which supports the City's functional role as the government center of the County. The types of uses typically located in the PAO district include the following: • Professional and administrative offices/office parks; • Service activities such as copy centers, courier services, travel agencies, and restaurants when such uses are an integral component of a planned office development; and • Professional uses such as accountants, attorneys, doctors, engineers, and insurance brokers. General Commercial Districts The General Commercial district (GC) applies to commercial corridors in Santa Ana including those located along Main Street, Seventeenth Street, Harbor Boulevard, and other major arterial roadways in the City. The intensity standard applicable to this designation is a floor area ratio of 0.5 -1.0, though most General Commercial districts have a FAR of 0.5. A total of ~1-A3 1,113.6 acres of land is included in this designation. General Commercial districts are key components in the economic development of the City. They provide highly visible and accessible commercial development along the City's arterial transportation corridors. In addition, General Commercial land uses provide important neighborhood facilities and services, including shopping, recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, employment, and education. The districts also provide support facilities and services for industrial areas including office and retail, restaurants and various other services. A-19 Rev/sed (Adoption Date) 75B-20 LAND USE ELEMENT Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build-out of the Land Use Plan. The build-out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build-out for residential development is calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the areas designated as District Center to the existing 74,588 units presently found in the City. Theoretical build-out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build-out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, four of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build-out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build-out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between ~6 65,212 to 77,820 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical build-out scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple-family developments constructed in the 1970's and 1980's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless of the character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4 up to 5~a^''~ 55,658,406 square feet of commercial and office development, and 44,891,128 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. Revised (Adoption Date) ~ ~~ _ Amended Table A-4 Land Use Plan Build-out Capacities Intensity/Density Effective Theoretical Land Use Acres Standards Build-outs Build-out Mixed Use2 103.5 ac FAR 3.0 Metro East Residential DC 5,551 d.u. SubTotal 5,551 d.u. Metro East Commercial DC 3,245,185 s.f. 3,245,185 s.f. SubTotal 3,245,185 s.f. 3,245,185 s.f. Residential Low Density Residential LR-7 6,474.4 ac. 7 d.u./ac 45,321 d.u. Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 433.8 ac. 11 d.u./ac 4,772 d.u. Medium Density Residential MR-15 443:a-as. 413.2 ac. 4 19 0 15 d.u./ac 4-,~-d-r~. 6,198 d.u. 6 Residential/Industrial3 R/1-15 - ~ -as 9.2 ac. 15 d.u./ac 50-~~: 138 d.u. District Center4 DC 35.9 ac. 90 d.u./ac 3,232 d.u. SubTotal 7,366.5 ac. ~ ~-.--o-.-~-ao: r 77,820 d.u., 59,661 d.u. 59-T~d~ , Commercial Professional & Admin. Office PAO 621.5 ac. FAR 0.5-1.0 13,536,270 s.f. 27,072,540 s.f. General Commercial GC 1,113.6 a.c. a 19 FAR 0.5-1.0 24,254,426 s.f. 7A 14Q 171 o f 48,508,852 s.f. A A 77R 7A4 o f District Center4 DC --- 6 323.2 ac. FAR 1.0-2.0 e 14,079,332 s.f. , 28,158,665 s.f. One Broadway Plaza District Ctrg OBPDC 4.3 ac. FAR 2.9 543,193 s.f. 543,193 s.f. SubTotal 2,062.6 ac. 52,413,221 s.f. ~~ Boa a~ a ~ s 104,283,249 s.f. Industrial Industrial IND 2,280.9 ac. FAR 0.45 44,710,202 s.f. 44,710,202 s.f. Residential/Industrial3 R/I-15 18.5 ac. FAR 0.45 180,926 s.f. 180,926 s.f. SubTotal 2,290.1 ac. 44,891,128 s.f. 44,891,128 s.f. Other - Institutional5 INS 812.6 ac. FAR 0.2-0.5 7,079,023 s.f. 17,697,557 s.f. Open Space OS 1,019.0 ac. FAR 0.2 _..8,877,876 s.f. 8,877,876 s.f. SubTotal 1,831.6 ac. 15,956,899 s.f. 26,575,433 s.f. Notes: ,Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the District Center with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. zThe Metro East District Center allows a range of intensity for mixture of residential and commercial development based on the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone development standards. ,Land use designation permits both residential and industrial development. Buildout assumed 50% of the land area will be developed as residential and 50% as industrial development. ,Land use designation permits both residential and commercial development. Buildout assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential. FAR -floor area ratio, d.u. -dwelling units, s.f. -square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-0f--way. BEffective capacity assumes FAR of 0.2 Bland use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. Revised (Adoption Dete) ~ C ~3~ Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of provisions of this Chapter. The proposed reduction in the front yard setback will allow the applicant the ability to construct a new addition to the Gateway Plaza retail center. Due to the conveyance of land for the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, the placement of the new buildings was constrained. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the setback variance will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a project that will be consistent with the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district and with a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. A condition of approval has been incorporated that will require additional, enhanced landscaping along MacArthur Boulevard to mitigate the loss of setback area. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the setback variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed buildings will be buffered by landscaping and outdoor plaza area and will allow the buildings to be placed at the rear of the site, thereby reducing the impact to the adjacent residential uses. EXHIBIT 9 75B-23 Variance No. 2008-03 March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 2 D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City as retail uses are permitted in the General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. Further, the proposed building is consistent with Goals 1, 2 and 3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which encourage the City to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, promote uses that enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. 75B-24 MARCH 24, 2008 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions of Approval Variance No. 2008-03 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Standards Building Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 07-19 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a voluntary lot merger to combine the lots into one parcel shall be recorded. 4. Landscaping along the south property line shall be upgraded to 36-inch box trees. 5. Prior to submittal into building plan check, revise the plans to show decorative paving will be installed at all project driveway entries. B. Police Department 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, submit a conceptual lighting plan for the parking lot. Light standards cannot be located in landscaped areas to avoid conflict with the canopy growth of trees. 2. The existing parking lot and structures must conform to the provision of the Building Security Ordinance, including lighting, doors and window locking devices, and addressing. ~~~ c MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Carlos Bustamante COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez P. David Benavides Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. Box 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 (714) 667-2700 . Fax (714) 973-1461 www.santa-ana.org CITY MANAGER David N.- Reim - _ "C~ ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED 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: Gateway Plaza Retail Center Project Description: The proposed project consists of the construction of two new retail buildings totaling 10,400 square feet with related parking and landscape. The buildings replace a car wash that was previously demolished and will be an addition to an existing 12,900 square foot retail center. Project Location: 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard Project Number: AA No. 2008-02, GPA No. 2008-01, Variance No. 2008-03 and ER No. 2007-73 Public Review Period: March 10, 2008 to March 30, 2008 Hearing Date: April 7, 2008 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Mitigated 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 March 30, 2008. Please direct your comments to: Vince Fregoso, Principal 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 Vince Fregoso at (714) 667-2713. ~~ MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Carlos Bustamante COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez P. David Benavides Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. Box 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 (714) 667-2700 • Fax (714) 973-1461 www.santa-ana.org MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy 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: Amendment Application (AA) No. 2008-02, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2008-01, Variance No. 2008-03 & Environmental Review No. 2007-73 Applicant: MHI Real Company 1601 Dove Street, Suite 145, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project Location /Address: 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard Project Title /Description: The proposed project consists of the construction of two new retail buildings within an existing retail center. The first building will be a one- story, 6,146 square foot structure that will be located immediately west of the existing retail building. The second building will be approximately 4,200 square feet in size and will be located at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. This building is planned for restaurant and similar food related uses and will incorporate an outdoor dining amenity into its design. 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 paced on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance. ~ 3 ~.~ Signature. Date: 7 Principal Plann This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 75~3~~ Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION Project Title: Gateway Plaza Project Numbers: AA 2008-02, GPA 2008-01, VA 2008-03 and ER 2007-73 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division (M-20) P.O. Box 1988, Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Contact and Phone Number: Vince Fregoso (714) 667-2713 V. Project Location: 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard VI. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Larry Smith, MHI Real Company, 1601 Dove Street, Suite 145, Newport Beach, CA 92660 VII. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MR) VIII. Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R-2) IX. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of the construction of two new retail buildings within an existing retail center. The first building will be a one-story, 6,146 square foot structure that will be located immediately west of the existing retail building. The second building will be approximately 4,200 square feet in size and will be located at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. This building is planned for restaurant and similar food related uses and will incorporate an outdoor dining amenity into its design. The existing retail building will also be remodeled to match the architectural design of the two new buildings. A contemporary design theme has been proposed by the developer, with elements such as stacked stone veneer, metal awnings and standing seam metal roofing to be utilized throughout the project. Site improvements include decorative paving at the vehicle driveways and pedestrian pathways, restriping and reslurrying of the parking lot, and the replacement of missing plant materials and the installation of new landscape planters. The project will provide 160 parking spaces and meet the landscape standards for the zone. As the project currently has residential general plan and zoning designations, a general plan amendment and zone change to commercial is proposed. Additionally, a variance to allow a reduction in the front yard setback is requested. X. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a partially developed, rectangular shaped parcel located on the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. Vehicular access to the site is from both MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive, with MacArthur Boulevard listed as major arterial streets in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The surrounding land uses include residential to the north and west, and commercial to the south and east. XI. Other agencies whose approval is required. No approval is required from outside agencies. LL\M:\WP51\MISC\Gateway Plaza IS.doc R R Page 1 of 2 75~ 3i~~+ Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by that project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics O Agricultural Resources O Air Quality O Biological Resources O Cultural Resources O Geology and Soils O Hazards and Hazardous Materials O Hydrology and Water Quality O Land Use and Planning Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: O Mineral Resources O Noise O Population and Housing O Public Services O Recreation O Transportation and Traffic O Utilities and Service Systems O Mandatory Findings of Significance A. ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. ® Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -)pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. ^ Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. ^ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. `~ C 3 ~ ~~' Sig ature Date Vince Fregoso. Principal Planner Printed Name LL\M:\WP51\MISC\Gateway Plaza IS.doc ~ ~~ 3~ ~ Page 2 of 2 Environmental Checklist 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 aproject-specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Issues & Supporting Information Sources I. Aesthetics -Would the project: Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ^ ^ ^ D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ^ ^ ® ^ 75~~~0 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ^ ^ ^ Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment ^ ^ ^ which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. Air Quality -Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 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 exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ® ^ concentrations? 75~~~ 1 ~ i " '~~ Environmental Checklist 1 ! CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ^ ^ ^ paleontological resource or site? 75~r~32 i i " '~~ Environmental Checklist ,~ CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D. Disturb any human remains, including those ^ ^ ^ interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soits -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 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? 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? 75~~~3 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ^ 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)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ^ ^ ® ^ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? 75~3~4 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D. Create or contribute runoff water which would ^ ^ ® ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ® ^ ^ F. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as ^ ^ ^ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? G. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which ^ ^ ^ would impede or redirect flood flows? H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. I. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to ^ ® ^ ^ receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash) J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water ^ ® ^ ^ quality during or following construction? K. Could the proposed project result in increased ^ ® ^ ^ erosion downstream? L. Result in increased impervious surfaces and ^ ® ^ ^ associated increased runoff? 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? 75,~~5 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? ^ ® ^ ^ If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact ^ ® ^ ^ on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on ^ ® ^ ^ groundwater quality? R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of ^ ® ^ ^ applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? S. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? ^ ® ^ ^ IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ^ ^ ^ or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^ plan or natural community conservation plan? X. Mineral Resources -Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ^ ^ ^ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 75,6 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI Noise -Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ^ ^ ® ^ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ® ^ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ® ^ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ^ ® ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? E. For a project located within an airport land use ^ ^ ^ plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. Population and Housing -Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ^ ^ ^ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 75-~7 L i " '~ Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: 1. Fire protection? ^ ^ ® ^ 2. Police protection? ^ ® ^ ^ 3. Schools? ^ ^ ^ 4. Parks? ^ ^ ^ 5. Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing ^ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or ^ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ^ ^ ^ ^ XV. Transportation /Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ^ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ® ^ 751°8 t i "'~~ Environmental Checklist i j CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ^ ^ ^ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ^ ^ ^ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting ^ ^ ^ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ^ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water ^ ^ ^ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm ^ ^ ^ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ^ project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 75~~~9 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ^ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects which ^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ 75,0 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance The following is an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project based upon the City of Santa Ana Environmental Checklist. The analysis incorporates by reference information from the environmental impact report for the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element (EIR No. 97-1 ). 1. Aesthetics- A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a State highway? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR, there are no scenic vistas within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The Orange Freeway (SR-57), Newport Freeway (SR-55), and Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) are the three state highways that can be found in the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project site is not visible from any of those highways and therefore will not damage or destroy any scenic resources that are located within the vicinity of these highways. C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? 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 proposed project will not degrade the visual quality of the site, with impacts anticipated to be beneficial, not adverse. The project replaces a carwash development with better materials. Major sources of light and glare in the project area include light from street and parking lot lights, illuminated signage, headlights from vehicles, security lighting, and indoor lighting. The proposed project will not introduce substantial new lighting which will be discernable over existing conditions. II. Agricultural Resources A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agriculture use? B. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agriculture use? No Impact Although a portion of the site is vacant, the proposed project will replace a former urban development (carwash) on the site, which is not in agricultural production. Additionally, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City of Santa Ana contains a limited amount of Prime and Unique Farmlands. Presently, there are no areas in the City that are under existing Williamson Contracts. Therefore the proposed project will not result in any adverse impacts to agricultural resources. 751~3t~1 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance III. Air Quality A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? No Impact The City of Santa Ana is included within the South Coast Air Quality Management District and subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act at both the Federal and State level. 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 the General Plan. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in the City's General Plan. The proposed commercial project will not impact the growth projections in the General Plan. Therefore, approval of the proposed general plan amendment and amendment application would not be in conflict with the South Coast AQMP. 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? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin is currently anon-attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified below. EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Project Pollutant Construction Tonsl Operations PoundslDa Quarter Pounds/Da Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550 Reactive Organic Com ounds 75 2.5 55 Nitro en Oxides 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter 150 6.75 150 Long-Term Operational Air Quality Impacts The primary source of long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be generated by vehicle travel to and from the project site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity usage. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and would not exceed the air pollutant emission projections established in the General Plan Land Use Element EIR. 7aE~~2 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance ort-term onstructe Relate Air uality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate matter, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants arising from construction of the proposed project would occur during the grading and demolition phases. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook as a general guideline, the threshold for potentially significant short-term air quality impacts would involve the grading of 1,309,000 square feet of area and the demolition of 23,214,000 cubic feet of building area. The proposed project would require no demolition and re-grading of 43,465 square feet of lot area only. The amount of grading and demolishing activities for the proposed project would be considerably less than the threshold of significance outlined in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. While the construction related emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD, the emissions could be a nuisance to other existing land uses in the nearby vicinity of the project site. To minimize short-term construction related to air impacts within the project area, the following project enhancement measure shall be implemented. Project Enhancement Measure During construction, the contractor would be required to comply with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to suppress dust generated by construction operations. To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403, grading plans and demolition plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following notes: All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 2. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. 3. Streets surrounding the project site shall be cleaned at the end of each day of construction. 4. All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be minimized at all times. 6. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. 7. To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be used for onsite and offsite construction activities. In addition, it has been determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result significant long-term or short-term air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project area would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of air quality pollutants. Finally, the proposed project is a retail land use and would not generate significant long-term operational odors. Construction equipment and operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in odor impacts. However, the odors would be short-term and would not be considered significant. 75~~>~3 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR indicates that Santa Ana is predominantly built-out and that all sizable expanses of undisturbed native vegetation have been eliminated. Approval and implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts to any on-site biological resource. V. Cultural Resources A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact According to the National Register of Historical Structures and the City of Santa Ana Local List of Historical Properties, there are no historical structures located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any historic resource. B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no known or recorded archaeological or paleontological resources on or within the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project site is partially developed and vacant. The probability for the discovery of unknown cultural resources would be low. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to unknown cultural resources. 754 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance VI. Geology and Soils A-1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is not located within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed project would be considered low. A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within a highly active seismic region of Southern California. A total of 38 active faults have been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the project site. The Newport/Inglewood Fault located approximately 13 miles south from the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The project site could potentially be subject to a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g from a magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Newport/Inglewood fault zone. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result in significant damage to the project site. However, the risks at the project site are similar to many other areas in the Southern California region. To minimize potential seismic shaking impacts, the proposed project would be subject to Seismic Safety Standards of the California Standards Building Code. Compliance with the Code would reduce potential impacts associated with seismic shaking activity to a level that would be less than significant. A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact Soil liquefaction occurs when loose soil deposits below the water table are subject to large ground accelerations generated from seismic events. According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is located in an area that is characterized with high-very high liquefaction hazard potential. To minimize potential liquefaction impacts, the proposed project would be subject to Seismic Shaking Standards of the California Standards Building Code. Compliance with the Code would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to a level considered less than significant. A-4. Landslides No Impact The project site is flat without any topographical relief. According to the City's General Plan, there are no landslide planes on the project site. 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? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 75~~,~5 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance rosion re ers to the removal o soi rom exposed be roc su aces y water or win e e ects o 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 excavation of onsite soils. The uncovered soils on the project site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To minimize potential erosion impacts, the proposed project would be required to employ the following Best Management Practices during construction operations. Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit that includes: (a) A copy of the project's permit issued by the State Water Resource Control Board that identifies the permit number, (b) Two copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable "Site Design" structural "Source Control° and "Treatment Control" Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Submit for approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan. 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. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the 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. 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? Less Than Significant Impact According the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is located on soils that have high shrink/swell potential, possible corrosion potential to uncoated steel and low corrosion potential to concrete. The soil conditions on the project site would not provide a constraint that would prevent the development of the proposed project. As part of the City's development review process, a geotechnical study would be prepared to identify geotechnical design recommendations to ensure the long-term 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 an improved building site with an improved sewer system. In terms of geological stability, the project will not require the expansion of additional sewer facilities. 75~3~6 6 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 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 Approval of the proposed retail development would have no impact on transport or disposal of hazardous material in that the proposed project would not involve activities that would emit hazardous or acutely hazardous material. Additionally, according to the City of Santa Ana Fire Department and the City's General Plan, 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 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 City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR and the Orange County Airports Environs Land Use Plan, Santa Ana is not located within any aircraft accident potential zones, nor is the proposed project located within a John Wayne Airport Planning Area. Additionally, there are no private airstrips in the City. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not increase the potential for safety hazards for people residing in or working within the City. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Resulting an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? 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 runoff? 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 body is already impaired? 7~3t~7 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact or surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on the 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The City of Santa Ana is included within four watersheds, San Diego Creek, Santa Ana River, Talbert and Westminster. Each of these watershed areas are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the objectives, water quality standards and Best Management Practice requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The City of Santa Ana implements the goals, objectives and requirements of the Basin Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the City's Local Implementation Plan. Storm water flows from the project site would be conveyed to an underground storm drain before ultimately discharging into Santa Ana River watershed. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified Santa Ana River as impaired by nutrients, sediments, metals and pesticides. The primary source of potential adverse water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project would be from nuisance flows. Nuisance flows is defined as runoff that occurs during periods that are not usually associated with rainfall, and are most commonly produced from landscapirig irrigation, leaking pipes, and water used to wash off surfaces tributary to the street. Since nuisance flows usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Additionally, surface water runoff generated from the project site during construction operations could be degraded potentially resulting in adverse water quality impacts to downstream receiving waters. Mitigation Measures • Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit that includes; (a) A copy of the project's permit issued by the State Water Resource Control Board that identifies the permit number, (B) Two copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • Prior to 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 Best Management Practices in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan. • Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that would include the following: Site Assessment 7~~~8 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance b. ite design Best Management Practices P c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMP Selecting and sizing the Treatment Control BMP e. Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all structural BMP will be provided Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMP and to identify the entity in charge of implementation • The proposed project would be subject to City of Santa Ana Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fees. 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. 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 for the proposed project would not encroach onto the underground water basin. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any underground water supplies. C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run- off? Less than Significant Impact The project site is located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. The proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces unto the project site. There would be no significant increase in the surface water flows generated from the project site because the site is currently imperious and the project would just replace similar materials. F. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? G. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? H. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact 7~~~~49 9 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance The City of Santa Ana is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program {NFIP). Communities participating in the NFIP must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards, including identification of flood hazards and flood risks. Participation in the NFIP allows communities to purchase low cost insurance protection against losses from flooding. The published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the project site is included on Community Panel No. 06059C0259H. 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 and Planning A. Physically divide an established community? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan? No Impact The project site is currently developed with a commercial development oriented towards one arterial street. The new development will continue the existing development pattern and will not divide existing neighborhoods. The proposed project is located in an urbanized setting and no locally designated species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No impact The General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site are residential but has been historically used as commercial. The proposed project includes a general plan amendment and zone change to allow the properties to be redesignated to be consistent with the existing development as well as allow retail uses on a major arterial street. The proposed project will continue the existing development pattern and will not create a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 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. XI. Noise 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. 7~~3~0 10 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is subject to noise standards and guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana Noise Element is to "Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and minimize the adverse effects of currently-existing noise sources." In accordance with the Noise Element, the City has adopted noise standards and guidelines for land use planning. These guidelines for exterior noise levels are presented in Table N-1. Table N-1 Ci Of Santa Ana Land Use Gu idelines For Exterior Noise Land Use Noise Level dBA CNEL or Ldn Desirable Maximum Maximum Acce table Low Densit Residential 55 65 Medium Densit Residential 60 65 Hi h Densit Residential 65 70 Schools 60 70 Commercial, Office 65 75 Industrial 70 75 A significant noise impact would occur if a proposed land uses does not comply with the General Plan noise standards identified in Table N-1, or when a proposed land use results in an 3dB increase to existing noise levels when the existing noise level is at least 65 d6 CNEL. The operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase noise levels within the project site. A significant increase in noise would be a 3dB increase over existing noise levels. Typically, a 3db increase in noise levels occurs when existing traffic volumes are doubled. The proposed project would not double existing traffic volumes within the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a 3db increase to existing noise levels within the project area. B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. Less Than Significant Impact The construction of the proposed project would involve conventional construction equipment resulting in less than significant ground borne vibration impacts. No mitigation measures are necessary. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term construction related noise impacts. Short-term noise impacts would result from site preparation, excavation, grading, and other construction operations. The construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would no longer occur once construction of the project is complete. 7~~1 tt Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance T e Municipa ode recognizes that some orms o noise are require or urban eve opment an maintenance and are difficult to control. Section 18-314(e) exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities 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. Compliance with Noise Ordinance would reduce construction noise impacts to a level considered 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 There are no public airports in the City of Santa Ana; however, John Wayne International Airport is located one-mile southwest of city limits. The proposed project is located within atwo-mile radius of the airport. According to the Santa Ana General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, no area of the City of Santa Ana is within the noise impact area or 65 CNEL of John Wayne International Airport. Therefore, people residing or working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels. No impact is anticipated. XII. Population and Housing A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The proposed project would replace an existing commercial development with another commercial use. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the population within the project area or displace existing households within the project area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and local and regional growth projections for the project area. XIII. Public Services Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana Fire Department will provide fire protection and emergency services to the project site. The City maintains ten fire stations throughout the City. The 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. Fire Station No. 6 is located at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Towner Street and is approximately %2 mile from the project site. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the demand for fire protection services over current levels of demand within the project area and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment the Fire Department would be able to provide an adequate level of service. 7 ° ~2 12 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Police Protection: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, implementation of the extended hours of operation may potentially increase the demand for police protection services over current levels of manpower and equipment. In order to minimize the potential impacts associated with the extended hours of operation, the Police Department is recommending the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures: • The existing building and parking lot must conform to the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing project's lighting, door/window locking devices and addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. • The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of occurrence. Schools, Parks, Other Facilities: No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not generate demand for additional school services above the current conditions, nor would it generate demand for additional park services. No adverse impacts to schools, parks or other public services would occur. XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not generate additional demands on existing recreation facilities or require the construction of new recreation facilities. No adverse impacts to recreation services and facilities would occur. XV. TransportationlTraffic A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less than Significant Impact with mitigation incorporated The implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle trips in the project area in that the project replaces land zoned for residential uses. According to projected trip generation prepared by the City of Santa Ana Traffic Division, an additional 2,000 trips may be anticipated from the commercial development, with only 130 trips in the peak a.m. hour and 120 in the peak p.m. hour. In order to mitigate the traffic projections for the proposed project, the following mitigation measures are proposed: 7~~~~3 13 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Mitigation Measures: • Provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate eight feet of right-of-way along the project frontage to allow an ultimate street centerline to property line width of 60 feet. • Provide a 25 foot by 25 foot dedication for a corner cutoff/handicap ramps at the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. • Record reciprocal ingress/egress easements between the project site and the properties to the east. B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic that will affect the level of service standard for MacArthur Boulevard or Bristol Street, the two arterial streets in the immediate vicinity. No impact is anticipated. 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 There are no public airports in the City of Santa Ana; however, John Wayne International Airport is located one-mile southwest of city limits. The proposed project is located within atwo-mile radius of the airport. The maximum height of the building is 32 feet. No impact is anticipated. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature No Impact Through the City's development review process, the City's Public Works Agency has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not increase traffic hazards within the project area. E. Result in inadequate emergency access No 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. No adverse emergency access impacts would be associated with the proposed project. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity No Impact The project's parking requirement, based on the City of Santa Ana parking code is 152 parking stalls. The project will contain 160 parking stalls; therefore the project complies, and exceeds, the City's parking requirement. 7 ~ iC ^ 14 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No 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 A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments. No Impact The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regulates wastewater treatment for the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project will not cause any violation of those standards set forth by the OCSD. The City of Santa Ana and OCSD would provide wastewater service to the proposed project. The project area is currently improved with wastewater sewer facilities. Implementation of the project wtluld not increase wastewater demands in the project area over current condition. The wastewater demands of the project would be accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Additionally, implementation of the project would not increase the amount of surface water runoff currently generated from the project site. The project would not require the construction of new drainage facilities. The City of Santa Ana Water Department would provide domestic water service for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase water demand within the project area over the current condition. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and water demands are accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Ptan. 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 75~~5 15 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance The ity o ants na woul prove a soli waste collection services to t e project site. olid waste is transported to the Environmental Service transfer station in Irvine, and then taken 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. The proposed project would not significantly increase 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. No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, in that no fish, wildlife populations or cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. Additionally, it is unlikely that unknown cultural resources would be discovered on the project site as it has previously been developed. B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to the environment. The proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the California Standards Building Code, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? No Impact 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. 7v~~~6 t6 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XVIII. 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 City Santa Ana Local Register of Historic Structures National Register of Historic Structures Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 06059C0259H City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee, August 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines, January 1999 Site Visit by Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner, February 2008 Integrated Waste Management Solid Waste Generation Rate City of Santa Ana 2000 Urban Water Management Plan XX.PREPARERS Vince Fregoso, City of Santa Ana Principal Planner 7 ~L~df-3~ ~ 17 GATEWAY PLAZA MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2007-73 MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY APPROVAL Prior to issuance of Gradin Permit and durin construc tion • During construction, the contractor shall comply Public Works with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to suppress dust generated by construction operations. To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403, grading plans and demolition plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following notes: o All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o 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. o Streets surrounding the project site shall be cleaned at the end of each day of construction. o All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be minimized at all times. o Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. o To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be used for onfite and offsite construction activities. • The project developer shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit that includes: (a) A copy of the project's permit issued by the State Water Resource Control Board that identifies the permit number, (b) Two copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 75B-58 • Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable "Site Design" structural "Source Control" and "Treatment Control" Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan (LIP). • Submit for approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan. 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. • Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that include the following: o Site Assessment o Site design Best Management Practices (BMP) o Applicable Routine Source Control BMP o Selecting and sizing the Treatment Control BMP o Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all structural BMP will be provided o Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMP and to identify the entity in charge of implementation • The proposed project would be subject to City of Santa Ana Federal Clean Water Protection Ente rise Fees. Prior to the issuance of a Buildin Permit • Provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate eight Public Works feet of right-of--way along the project frontabge to allow an ultimate street centerline to property line width of 60 feet. • Provide a 25 foot by 25 foot dedication for corner cutoff/handicap ramps at the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Plaza Drive. • Record reciprocal ingress/egress easements between the project site and the properties to the east. 75B-59 The buildings and parking lot must conform to Police the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing project's lighting, door/window locking devices and addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of occurrence. 3 75B-60 KO- 4/29/08 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2007-73) AND AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA TO MODIFY THE LAND USE ELEMENT (GPA NO. 2008-01) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting adoption and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01, Amendment Application No. 2008-02 and Variance No. 2008-03 to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet to allow the construction of two new buildings within an existing retail center at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. B. On March 24, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted by a vote of 4:0 (Betancourt, Gartner and Munoz absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008- 01. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008- 02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned. C. On May 5, 2008, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written Resolution No. 2008-XXX Page 1 of 4 75B-61 and oral. D. General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to modify the Land Use Element to change the property located at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard from Medium Density Residential (MR) to General Commercial (GC). E. The Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 is consistent with the General Plan, including but not limited to its policies and goals of: Promote the balance of land uses to address basic community needs. Land Use Element Goal No. 1.0. 2. Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Land Use Element Goal No. 2.0. 3. Support land uses with provide community and regional economic and service benefits. Land Use Element Policy No. 4.3. F. The Council finds that the City's general plan is designed, as it must be, to accommodate a wide range of competing interests -including those of developers, neighborhoods and homeowners, prospective homebuyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, jobseekers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all types of city-provided services -and to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. The City's general plan sets forth these guiding principles. Once in place, it is the province of this Council to examine the specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be in harmony with the policies stated in the general plan. G. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies, both new and old, and has determined that based upon this balancing that General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01 is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. H. Amendment Application No. 2008-02, and Variance No. 2008-03 also came before the City Council on May 5, 2008 for public hearing. This resolution incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the ordinance and resolution in support of this resolution and the findings made herein. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program for Environmental Review No. 2007-73 prepared with respect to this Project. It is determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a mitigated negative declaration and Resolution No. 2008-XXX Page 2 of 4 75B-62 mitigation monitoring program adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. The City Council hereby, approves General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01. The pages changed in the Land Use Element (Exhibit A) are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated May 5, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. This resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS-2765 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 5. The City Council expressly reserves the right to modify, amend or repeal this resolution at any time by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Section 6. The Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2008. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney Resolution No. 2008-XXX Page 3 of 4 75B-63 By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2008-X:XX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2008-XXX Page 4 of 4 75B-64 LAND USE ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2, 1998 The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997-05): GPA 2008-01 (May 5, 2008), GPA 2007-02 (June 18, 2007), GPA 2007-01 (March 19, 2007), GPA 2006-01 (October 2, 2006), GPA 2005-01 (December 5, 2005), GPA 2005-02 (October 17, 2005), GPA 2004-01 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana), GPA 2004-04 (July 19, 2004), GPA 2004-06 (July 6, 2004), GPA 2003-02 (June 16, 2003), GPA 2003-01 (February 18, 2003), GPA 2002-01 (September 3, 2002), GPA 2002-03 (August 19, 2002), GPA 2001-03 (February 19, 2002), GPA 2001-02 (January 7, 2002), GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001), GPA 2000-08 (February 5, 2001), GPA 2000-03 (December 4, 2000), GPA 2000-02 (November 20, 2000), GPA 1999-02 (October 18, 1999), GPA 1999- 01 (August 16, 1999), GPA 1998-04 (October 5, 1998), GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998), GPA 1998-01 (May 4, 1998). a ~_ ~ c Y C ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ a ~ a X S a lL o a D -- ~ ~ , c N f E a S m v ~ g~ g~ v 9~ ~ Q b J -~ ~J 7 f 2~ lyJ Z ? O ~ a p rn 75B-66 O W ~ ~ V a In N ~ N O O O O O O 4 .-~In O1A0OiAoo~rvov>ov~ian ooov~o •FJ \ iI~ I w~I V~ OCO.-N~ ^ '^ W a~ V' ~ b O .. L LL ~ .@ N LL Q. ~ W ~ O m a ^ c m ~~ ~ ^ ° ~ N ~ ^' W ~ (n ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .$ g o ,. m~ c ~ .~ a en E C E ~~ a : ~ ~ ~ 5 a ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ A :~,Ve s g z ~ N $ N ~ ~ > U) LL ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~+ a , d~ ~~ ~ ~ °J o` e v o ~ ~ 8 p~ s ~ v J W F ~ ~+ ~ ~ u~uT~ '~$agtgm ~f1Ei ~ ~ y ~`~ ~ ~~~~~g~aa8' s g ? ~E~~~Og~ 3c~= ~~ N~i~~;~ ~ g~ ~ .. ~ & ~ ~ fn . ~ C p J N ) g~ m .. O lV Ov .~. y yoo o .. O ~ d ~m`E U3[~9 ~y=xw3UV¢G_w ^ K ~" ~ ~ ~s ~ O n cU7 z ~ ~ c g59g gggggg p ? ~ a ~UZi~xU~0 0X ~ ~n va'>g m~ ~fa~ ~ f ~ 0 r i NNN ~ ~ ® I .~ My\ 75B-67 LAND USE ELEMENT • To encourage lot consolidation for optimal site design, the floor area ratio can be calculated on an area wide basis for contiguous parcels which are part of a large, multi-structure project. • To qualify for an area wide floor area ratio calculation, a project must be integrated in design and function, and the owner/developer must record deed restrictions limiting the project area to the legally allowed floor area ratio. Land Use Designations The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes 11 land use designations. These designations indicate the types and intensity of development to be allowed on the property which they cover. Generally, the designation also reflects the predominant development character of the area. As is typical in older, urbanized communities like Santa Ana, there are some areas where existing development does not completely reflect the land use designation of the Land Use Plan. Where these occur the properties are deemed legal conforming and may continue until such time as the property has been vacant for twelve months or more. Each land use designation and a brief description are discussed below. Residential The Land Use Plan provides for three distinct residential land use designations. Residential development is also permitted in two other designations: District Center and Residential/Industrial. The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes the following residential land use designations: • The Low Density Residential (LR-7) designation applies to those areas of the City which are developed with lower density residential land uses. The allowable maximum development intensity is 7 units per acre. Development in this category is characterized primarily by single-family homes. This designation applies to a large proportion of the City (6,474.5 acres) representing 47 percent of the City's total land area. • The Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at permitted densities of up to 11 units per acre. The land area included in this designation is approximately 433.8 acres. The great majority of the land designated as Low-Medium Density Residential is located in the westerly portion of the City, north and south of First Street. Properties with this designation are typically characterized by mobile Revised (May 5, 2008) A-'r/ 5 B~ V 8 LAND USE ELEMENT home parks, a mixture of duplexes and single family residences, or small lot subdivisions. • The Medium Density Residential (MR-15) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at densities of up to 15 units per acre. Development in this designation is characterized by duplexes, apartments, or a combination of both. A total of 413.2 acres is designated as Medium Density Residential. The designation applies to areas located in the vicinity of downtown, areas north and south of MacArthur Boulevard, and in other areas where there are established multiple- family development projects. • The Residential /Industrial designation permits either residential development up to 15 units per acre or industrial uses. The designation applies to the Logan neighborhood, which was established near the turn of the century. Since the 1930s, this 18.5-acre area has developed with a mixture of residential and industrial uses. • The District Center designation permits residential development up to 90 units per acre when it is a component of a mixed-use, master planned project. In the Metro East District Center residential density is based on a maximum 3.0 floor area ratio and the overlay development standards. This category includes approximately 427 acres and is described in greater detail later in this section. Professional and Administrative Office The Professional/Administrative office (PAO) designation applies to those areas where professional and/or administrative offices are predominant, or where such development is being encouraged. Land included in this designation is found primarily near the Civic Center, and along the First Street and Tustin Avenue Corridors in close proximity to freeways. There are other smaller PAO areas in the City such as along North Broadway and along portions of east and west Seventeenth Street. A total of 621.5 acres is included in this land use designation. The floor area ratio intensity standard applicable to this land use designation ranges from 0.5 to 1.0. The Professional and Administrative Office areas are intended to provide a unique environment for office development in those areas of the City where office uses are the predominant land use. The purpose for maintaining and supporting these areas exclusively for office and office-related uses is to encourage major employment centers at locations which significantly lessen the impact to the City's local street system. The First Street/Tustin Avenue Revised (May 5, 2008) A-18 75B-69 LAND USE ELEMENT office corridor between the Santa Ana (I-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways serves this purpose. In addition, the orderly, well-maintained quality of existing development supports a continuation of these areas as functional office/employment centers. The Professional and Administrative Office designation includes a range of floor area ratios to differentiate development intensity and character in relation to adjacent land uses. The areas with a FAR of 0.5 are not major office centers, but rather have an established character of lower intensity garden office and professional service uses. These areas are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses. Office development along East Fourth Street, between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, is typical of this low-rise office character. The PAO area located adjacent to the Civic Center contains a range of office development intensity which supports the City's functional role as the government center of the County. The types of uses typically located in the PAO district include the following: • Professional and administrative offices/office parks; • Service activities such as copy centers, courier services, travel agencies, and restaurants when such uses are an integral component of a planned office development; and • Professional uses such as accountants, attorneys, doctors, engineers, and insurance brokers. General Commercial Districts The General Commercial district (GC) applies to commercial corridors in Santa Ana including those located along Main Street, Seventeenth Street, Harbor Boulevard, and other major arterial roadways in the City. The intensity standard applicable to this designation is a floor area ratio of 0.5 -1.0, though most General Commercial districts have a FAR of 0.5. A total of 1,113.6 acres of land is included in this designation. General Commercial districts are key components in the economic development of the City. They provide highly visible and accessible commercial development along the City's arterial transportation corridors. In addition, General Commercial land uses provide important neighborhood facilities and services, including shopping, recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, employment, and education. The districts also provide support facilities and services for industrial areas including office and retail, restaurants and various other services. A-19 Revised (May 5, 2008) 75B-70 LAND USE ELEMENT Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build-out of the Land Use Plan. The build-out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build-out for residential development is calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the areas designated as District Center to the existing 74,588 units presently found in the City. Theoretical build-out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build-out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, four of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build-out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build-out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between 65,212 to 77,820 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical build- out scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple-family developments constructed in the 1970's and 1980's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless of the character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4 up to 55,658,406 square feet of commercial and office development, and 44,891,128 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. Revised (May 5, 2008) 7~~-71 Amended Table A-4 Land Use Plan Build-out Capacities Intensity/Density Effective Theoretical Land Use Acres Standards Build-out, Build-out Mixed Use2 103.5 ac FAR 3.0 Metro East Residential DC 5,551 d.u. SubTotal 5,551 d.u. Metro East Commercial DC 3,245.185 s.f. 3,245,185 s.f. SubTotal 3,245,185 s.f. 3,245,185 s.f. Residential Low Density Residential LR-7 6,474.4 ac. 7 d.u./ac 45,321 d.u. Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 433.8 ac. 11 d.u./ac 4,772 d.u. Medium Density Residential MR-15 413.2 ac. 15 d.u./ac 6,198 d.u. Residential/Industrial3 R/1-15 9.2 ac. 15 d.u./ac 138 d.u. District Centera DC 35.9 ac. 90 d.u./ac 3,232 d.u. SubTotal 7,366.5 ac. 77,820 d.u., 59,661 d.u. Commercial Professional & Admin. Office PAO 621.5 ac. FAR 0.5-1.0 13,536,270 s.f. 27,072,540 s.f. General Commercial GC 1,113.6 a.c. FAR 0.5-1.0 24,254,426 s.f. 48,508,852 s.f. District Centera DC 323.2 ac. FAR 1.0-2.0 14,079,332 s.f. 28,158,665 s.f. One Broadway Plaza District Ctrs OBPDC 4.3 ac. FAR 2.9 543,193 s.f. 543,193 s.f. SubTotal 2,062.6 ac. 52,413,221 s.f. 104,283,249 s.f. Industrial Industrial IND 2,280.9 ac. FAR 0.45 44,710,202 s.f. 44,710,202 s.f. Residential/Industrial3 R/I-15 18.5 ac. FAR 0.45 180,926 s.f. 180.926 s.f. SubTotal 2,290.1 ac. 44,891,128 s.f. 44,891,128 s.f. Utner Institutionals INS 812.6 ac. FAR 0.2-0.5 7,079,023 s.f. 17,697,557 s.f. Open Space OS 1,019.0 ac. FAR 0.2 8,877,876 s.f. 8,877,876 s.f. SubTotal 1,831.6 ac. 15,956,899 s.f. 26,575,433 s.f. Notes: ,Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the District Center with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. zThe Metro East District Center allows a range of intensity for mixture of residential and commercial development based on the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone development standards. stand use designation permits both residential and industrial development. Build-out assumed 50% of the land area will be developed as residential and 50% as industrial development. 4Land use designation permits both residential and commercial development. Build-out assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential. FAR -floor area ratio, d.u. -dwelling units, s.f. -square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-way. sEffective capacity assumes FAR of 0.2 stand use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the G/S Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. Revised (May 5, 2008) A-31 75B-72 ORDINANCE NO. NS-2765 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1501 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD FROM TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) (AA NO.2008-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting adoption and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01, Amendment Application No. 2008-02 and Variance No. 2008-03 to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet to allow the construction of two new buildings within an existing retail center at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. B. On March 24, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted by a vote of 4:0 (Betancourt, Gartner and Munoz absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008-02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned. C. On May 5, 2008, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Amendment Application No. 2008-02 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to rezone the property located at 1501 West Macarthur Boulevard from Two-Family Residential (R-2) to General Commercial (C-2). E. Amendment Application No. 2008-02 is consistent with the General Plan, including but not limited to its goals and policies: 75B-73 Promote the balance of land uses to address basic community needs. Land Use Element Goal No. 1.0. 2. Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Land Use Element Goal No. 2.0. 3. Support land uses with provide community and regional economic and service benefits. Land Use Element Policy No. 4.3. F. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies and has determined that based upon this balancing that the project at 1501 West Macarthur Boulevard is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. G. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated May 5, 2008 accompanying this matter. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2008-02 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. H. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01, and Variance No. 2008-03 came before the City Council on May 5, 2008 for public hearing. This ordinance incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the resolutions and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in support of this ordinance and the findings made herein. Section 2. The real property located at 1501 West Macarthur Boulevard is hereby rezoned from Two-Family Residential (R-2) to General Commercial (C-2). (AA No. 2008-02) Amended Sectional District Map number 35-5-10 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated May 5, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 75B-74 ADOPTED this day of , 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Miguel A. Pulido Mayor CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75B-75 2]-5-10 ~ JU 26-5-10 SD-4 W ~ J~I SD-6 R1-PRD ;~I ~ ~. I I~==--, ~ i W ~ ~ R1 ~ `SD-44 i 1 `~'~ i t= II I~ a I 1 343-10 SANTA ANA CITY LIMITS 1'- __--~ 1 SUNFLOWE City SOUTH LINE SECT. 26-5-f0 SD-4 -see.-e~,1 I 1 n \\ I 1 \ 1 ~\ \'I ~I ISD-7i~ ~ R1-PRD ±~~? - I I Su~+Ee~ ,~ R4 i 1 1 n'IIND 19A'~~'B~ 1 I! ~1 l i iir Iii \ l i m l`_f~ II ~~ it I ~I I I 15 I I ---- . R2-PRD R4 26-5-10 25-5-10 36-5-10 - C2 C4 I I C2 y J O N m ~ ~ I NO RESOLUTION NO., ORDINANCE N0. OR DATE OF ADOPTION IS SHOWN FOR THIS MAP SINCE IT IS AN ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE SANTA ANA CITY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL PROPERTIES INCLUDED HEREON Ai GENERALAGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C7 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE C7-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT M7 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MIL T R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE I ARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RE ID C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD S ENTIAL ESTATE SP C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL ECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SP SPECIFIC PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 6O- MINIMUM FRONTAGE -6000 MINIMUM LOTAREA THIS MAP LS THE OFFICIAL SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTAANA. As AuTHOerzeD BY cm couNCa RESOLUTION NO. ]b163, DATE01f-1B-]4, I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THIS MAP IS ATRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP N0. 955~id Signed _ JAV TREVINO E%ECUTIVE DIREC70R PUNNING 8 BUILDING AGENCY Cenifirafe Da4 October 15 2007 • • , • ~ ~ ~ ~ PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION - CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA REVISED Y7/08 I SD-48 CR SD- 48 ~ __ __ ~_~ KO-4/29/08 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2008-03 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK ALONG MACARTHUR BOULEVARD FROM FIFTEEN FEET TO TEN FEET FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1501 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting adoption and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-01, Amendment Application No. 2008-02 and Variance No. 2008-03 to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet to allow the construction of two new buildings within an existing retail center at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. B. On March 24, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted by a vote of 4:0 (Betancourt, Gartner and Munoz absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008- 01. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2008- 02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned. C. On May 5, 2008, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-73, General Plan Amendment No. 2008- 01,and Amendment Application No. 2008-02 came before the City Council on May 5, 2008 for public hearing. This resolution incorporates by Resolution No. 2007-081 Page 1 of 5 75B-77 reference, as though fully set forth herein, the ordinance and resolution and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in support of this resolution and the findings made herein. E. Variance No. 2008-03 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet. Section 41-369 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a 15-foot landscaped setback. F. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a variance upon making certain findings. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of provisions of this Chapter. The proposed reduction in the front yard setback will allow the applicant the ability to construct a new addition to the Gateway Plaza retail center. Due to the conveyance of land for the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, the placement of the new buildings was constrained. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the setback variance will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a project that will be consistent with the General Commercial (C-2) zoning district and with a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. A condition of approval has been incorporated that will require additional, enhanced landscaping along MacArthur Boulevard to mitigate the loss of setback area. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the setback variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed buildings will be buffered by landscaping and outdoor plaza area and will allow the buildings to be placed at the rear of the site, thereby reducing the impact to the adjacent residential uses. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City as retail uses are permitted in the Resolution No. 2008- Page 2 of 5 75B-78 General Commercial (GC) General Plan land use designation. Further, the proposed building is consistent with Goals 1, 2 and 3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which encourage the City to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, promote uses that enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Section 2. The City Council after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Variance No. 2008-03 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein to reduce the required building setback along MacArthur Boulevard from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet for the property located at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated May 5, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. This resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS-2765 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. ADOPTED this day of 2008. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: Resolution No. 2007-081 Page 3 of 5 75B-79 ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Patricia E. Healy Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2008- Page 4 of 5 75B-80 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2008-03 Variance No. 2008-03 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Standards Building Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below rior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 07-19 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a voluntary lot merger to combine the lots into one parcel shall be recorded. 4. Landscaping along the south property line shall be upgraded to 36-inch box trees. 5. Prior to submittal into building plan check, revise the plans to show decorative paving will be installed at all project driveway entries. B. Police Department Prior to issuance of any building permit, submit a conceptual lighting plan for the parking lot. Light standards cannot be located in landscaped areas to avoid conflict with the canopy growth of trees. 2. The existing parking lot and structures must conform to the provision of the Building Security Ordinance, including lighting, doors and window locking devices, and addressing. Exhibit A Resolution No. 2008- Page 5 of 5 75B-81 75B-82