The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75A - 3417 W FIFTH STREETREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 18, 2009 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-02 TO MODIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 3417 WEST FIFTH STREET - VIHN TRAN, APPLICANT TY MANA ER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15' Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"`' Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On April 13, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03; and adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 by a vote of 5:0 (Alderete abstained, Gartner absent) to modify the General Plan and the North Harbor Specific Plan land use designation from Open Space to General Commercial to allow a medical office building at 3417 West Fifth Street. The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommendations outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. 'a M. Trevino cutive Director Planning and Building Agency LL:rb 11\reports\pc&za\gpa07-03zoa09-02 Medical Bldg.cc 75A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 2009 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY VIHN TRAN FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-02 TO MODIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 3417 WEST FIFTH STREET Prepared by Lucy Linnaus 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Vihn Tran, owner of the subject property, is requesting approval to develop a 6,002 square feet medical office building to be located at 3417 West Fifth Street. To allow the proposed project, the applicant is requesting a general plan amendment to redesignate the site from Open Space (OS) to General Commercial (GC). Additionally, the request includes a zoning ordinance amendment to modify the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) to redesignate the site from Open Space to General Commercial. Property Description The project site is 1 Streets. The site contiguous lots with currently vacant, but that was constructed ocated at the northeast corner of Fifth and Jackson is a rectangular shaped parcel composed of two a total area of 19,810 square feet. The site is was previously developed with a restaurant and bar in 1970 and demolished in 2004. Vehicular access EXHIBIT A 75A-2 General Plan Amendment 2007-03 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 April 13, 2009 Page 2 to the site is from both Jackson and Fifth Streets. The site is located within the Open Space (OS) land use designation of the General Plan and the Open Space land use category of the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) As stated on the plans, the existing billboard will be removed by the applicant at issuance of the building permit. Surrounding land uses include residential uses to the north, and commercial/industrial to the south, east and west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a two story, 6,002 square foot medical office building in compliance with the development standards of the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2). The applicant proposes to locate the building at the southwest corner of the site and adjacent to the streets to strengthen the urban design of the street and locate the required 36 parking stalls at the rear of the building to provide a buffer area between the residential uses to the north and this commercial use. The parking area will be fully landscaped to meet the palette established in the SP2 zoning district and illuminated to meet the Police Department's safety standards. The site will have vehicular and pedestrian access from both Fifth and Jackson Streets to allow efficient and safe internal circulation. The building's primary pedestrian access is at the corner facing both streets. A secondary access to the building will be provided off the parking lot (Exhibit 3). The building's architectural style is contemporary and employs a clean and simple geometric form in compliance with the North Harbor Specific Plan. The building will be constructed of split-face concrete masonry unit block, contrasted by smooth stucco walls in muted colors. To emphasize the horizontality of the building, the split-face block walls will be accented by horizontal lines of masonry block of different color and texture. The stucco walls will be accented by brightly colored horizontal metal awnings over the building windows and main entrances (Exhibits 4 and 5). While the building is not leased yet, the applicant anticipates that the medical office building will be open for business Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Analysis of the Issues In May 1994, the City of Santa Ana adopted the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) The intent of the Plan was to create a strong, viable commercial district supported by safe and well maintained neighborhoods. When the plan was adopted, this site was identified as one with potential for open space opportunities due to its proximity to Campesino Park and Willowick Golf Cou 7 ~A 3d was rezoned from commercial General Plan Amendment 2007-03 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 April 13, 2009 Page 3 to Open Space. Since the plan was adopted, the opportunities to develop as an open space use have not materialized and, since the site was demolished five years ago, it has remained vacant. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency has reviewed this site and has determined that since it is not adjacent to any park, its potential to develop as a public park is non-existent. As a result, the applicant is proposing to construct a medical office building on the site. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment and a zoning ordinance amendment to redesignate the site from Open Space (OS) to General Commercial (GC) Exhibit 6 describes the revisions to the Land Use Element text and maps to pursue this project. Exhibit 7 describes the revisions to the North Harbor Specific Plan to pursue this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site from an open space to a commercial land use would further the following General Plan land use element goals and policies: Promote land uses which enhance the city's economic Goal 2 and fiscal viability. Policy 2.10 Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. Goal 3 Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Policy 3.1 Support development which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Policy 3.5 Encourage new development and/or additions to existing development that is compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Goal 5 Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. Policy 5.1 Promote development which has a net community benefit, and enhances the quality of life. Policy 5.2 Protect the community from incompatible land uses. Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. The presence of vacant sites can be detrimental to the appearance of a neighborhood. This is particularly critical in this area as, according to the specific plan, it already lacks strong architectural character, has insufficient landscape and generally has a large number of older buildings that are not well maintained. Vacant sites also create a public nuisance and can contribute to create an environment that can be 7 5A-4 General Plan Amendment 2007-03 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 April 13, 2009 Page 4 conducive to crime, negatively impacting the adjacent residential uses. The proposed medical office building will help complete the commercial edge facing Fifth Street with a contemporary office building that will add architectural character and much needed landscape to the streetscape. Additionally, the proposed building is positioned in a manner that will create a buffer between a busy arterial street to the south and residential uses immediately to the north. Lighting has been designed and located to minimize impacts on the adjacent residential properties. The parking lot, separated from the residential use by a seven foot landscaped area and a block wall, will further create a buffer between uses. On October 28, 2008, the Santa Anita Neighborhood Association reviewed the project at their regularly scheduled meeting. After reviewing the plans for the project, the community generally welcomed the development as it will develop a long term vacant site and complete the neighborhood. Questions regarding the potential tenants, the parking adequacy, required public improvements and the expansion of Willowick Golf Course were raised and discussed at the meeting. In summary, the general plan and the zoning ordinance amendments will allow the construction of a new building on a site that has been vacant since 2004, benefiting the community by enhancing the neighborhood character, providing a positive transition between commercial and residential uses and providing a new service to the individuals who live and work in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15063), Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Environmental Review No. 2006-142 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 8). Lucy innaus Senior Planner /~.,:. Vince Freg so, AICP Principal 1 ner LL: jm 11\reports\pc&za\gpa07-03zoa09-02 Medical Bldg.pc 75A-5 I SD-~ ___ ~; C2 1 SP-2 v SP-2 ii SP-2 ~ ~ 41 R1 R~ I nvE. € 11 ~:;. I; ~ raRw s R1 Rl R1 R1 i suNSwEPTev. Rl ~R1 Ri!!YY~~_°_^~;\` M1 NIN ~~ SIDE PV 31 ` R2 I c av. R2 , Rz R1 I_====~ ~ R1 R1 EN R1 - m W - L.»~~»~~ i - nl SP-2 Ri SP- R2 Rp /~ R1 clfl. 2 R1 R1 - - - ~ Q` IR. ~ J -965: ; ' ~ ~~ m 1 ~ R2 % o° S2- ~ R2 R2 PR2 R1 E m 1 R1 r ¢ 1 x HAZARD AV. -- --- - w' ~ SD-53 I ~-_- I zx 'I RZ ,I I; IIIR2-PRp q I _~ ll w R1 O~ R1 ~ I; ii li o °< R1 I ~ i~ ~--1 ~~, i ~ S2- R2 N R2 SP- \ D q ~; I II IIR111 J I SP- I w n„sT. \ // R, ~ II ~_IL_I~ ~I_';_J 2 PROJECT I N / / 0 II R4-PRD ~ ~~~i ~~~~~ / I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ wluowx;K Dfl. I I_JI-J I_JI-J I Rl I ~ - -I ss>I - - SP-2 P-2 SP-2 / 5iM ST. 1 -- M1 -- z s I SP-2 -2 SP-2 sR-2 -2 1 -- Rz m Al R2 i SD i i ~ i a C2 R2 i ~--~/~ Ri R2~~~181'-I •I -38 j1 1 999 II i~ 0 M1 ~ SD-70 I II 1 I II / m R2-PRO_ ____ (R2-PRD --JI 1 R F :.I-_1 0 ~ II ;I II l 1 q SP- R2 R2 ~ I. R2 R2 R2 R2 ~ R2 11 it ~~-~ I-~ Ida.ea g~.L__~I_'~--____JI ^' 2 7 R1-PRD / /nl i; li i; WII° M1 -----'\--- ~~ --~~ I I Rz.$ // II II Mi II II° 1 _ // II II II II ~I II--_ ~1 A111 ~I (~_ ___JI 1 PRD / -- I,sL 11 /1 II II IA SP-2 `~ _;;_il il_!I g I __-__-i.\\ -_Jl iil 1 - - L\ ~ ~I PRD -----C? II 1 - $P-2 SP-2 SP-2^ SP-2 P- ~\\ L9\ __ -_ I - -~- FIRST S -- --- - - - - C2 - - SP- 1 I I / -'J ~ R2b I a li ,i IIC21i ,~~ez. I SP-2 ~tii •~~ sP-z IR21// / "/ C2- ~ C2 i C2 M1 SD-32 gR2< it ii it i < c ~ SD-4911 ii /` / , L// ----_ _ I II t ! II II II I/ R2 Ih`~ __ ~l.--I~ // /~ ~•II II 4 II 1 „C5 I~ II I~ I~ ~ R2 ~ L L un li \'______~I //L~ // jl Il--__ ~I c,ll III ~ ll_____ D Po ~~ I I I I I I SP- m - ~ // ~ II-JL_=JI-J~a "R2 // \1 // R211 II 5 2IIRllI I /r----_ [R2`~~R~ II IL===M1__ i1 m ~ fl. T ~- 7/`~/ l/mil li is--~R iJ_1=i1 ~/===R~ _ r= Ir=1 II Ir ---IA ~ R2 R2 ~_R2 /\\ // // 11 11 't II Ii li ------ 1 ii i1 it li I~-===__=~ = R2 - I1 r \~~ /D /i /i it II ° I II II II /,--_ `.._~ I \~~I ~L=11 I~------ ~~ SP-2 ill7\`\ ~l /l 11 II m li it it iiJ li ~Y~-',/ .__~I 11 1 `-------" , 11\, I2 / 1, 11 I I I I I 1 I ---,~--'~--'I 1 J I~ ~ i~-//--JI II -II II-~;~ II II II-- -------' 1 ~ ~ --- ---- ------ n ! _- ~I -- ~ Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-II 'a- R2 R2 R2 ~ R7 I~l ~ I ~ _I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q '1---~ I I II II I I I I II I; sT 2 Rl Ri rn Rz ~ R2 " R2 y R2 I Alll I II-JI-JI-JI-JI-JI-J R2 Q g T 3 a _~`-==i Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir-IiSP- R2 ~ R2 Q 61 L _I ~__ _I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I IRl ¢ wlulrs ST Al ,~__ II II II II II II II 2 I _96s _ not eea _ I II -1 l_~l_~l_~l_~l_ul_u~ ~ 1 A7 Q lai I __ _____ ~ I _= I.--~ zoo= y 1 D ~ 11 ~:' -'.~~~--II SP-2 SP-21 Al ' ST R1 ~Rl I I---~I~ R3 -- Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Ci COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Ct-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C&A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G PA 07-3/ZOA 09-2 ~ MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ~ - 3417 WEST FIFTH STREET - - =5DDFEET 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~TMAP ~~ BV 1 GOLF COURSE SEVENTH ST. ALLEY C M E C ! A L FIFTH H w w H STREET Z COM ER lAL INDUSTRIAL ~ COM ERCIAL 0 ~ J Y ALLEY ~ ALLEY Q ~ -i ~ ~ ~ = SFR Z J Q Z Q w Q ww J C7 ~ CS ~ ~~ y~ G PA 07-3/ZOA 09-2 ~ MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ~, 3417 WEST FIFTH STREET 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 75XjiI~jT 2 ALLEY SFR <~ el'J YP~7% Mb9tl9/S ~ ' v C .. ~ ~ 1~~l1ELS P9b9'Nl L6DE ~ e ~~ ~ GIC7~d ~~~ D ~ ~~oo®~o~~ ~~u~~®~~~u®~~u i ~ 31L19NUAY7fO a ~ ~ $¢ 4 ~~ r 1' ~t~__~__-~_m noes _-Y ~__~ pp a Its ~r 3 _ 4 ~ +s e - 1 ~ J ~=~>~~ ad ~ ~~~ ~ GPA 2007-3/ZOA 2009-2 75AE~IBIT 3 I i . _ ~ _~ I .:l i g --- - b I ' ! ^aF I L. I ~ I~ O I, o -- _ ~-} _ ~ '®~~' ~ ~ ~ -- F-- - i- Q 9~ a i ~~~ _ I -~- F ------ ~ ~ - ---- ~ I ----- - - ~ ~ r --- ~ , .` I . -~ - i y ~y i N ~ ~ I k ~', ~W I~ ~ I` ° ? ,l i ~ i~ N Y~ I~ i ~ ka I ~ p 17 L -. I. ' S a~ L~ a-.b .., a-.w f... s-.vs ~ ,r .,.. 'II6.~.o' g~ J . I. P V ~ ~ l1~ ~. ~`QQ I O s~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i~ s ~ 4~~ I ~ ~LL~ ~~a I I ~~ R i ~, ~ aF ~ _ 'i' #t ~~ ~;, i~ a 'I "i i ~ I - I . I 4 ___-- ~ !_ -_ ~4e .~ P ~ , ~If 4 § III ,~~' /~ ~p . ~ Vii t , ~ J ,, ~ ~ 1--. ..J,,• K ~ y w-., - a ~~ ~~~ >~ ~ ~ g ~~ e~ .h,m, e, Cd - - ~ 'o _. 133211S NOS~IJNI s ° ~ kl I ~~ t p Web LL 25 iGi R a ~ N < ~ ` ;~ ~ e I i I i I I ~', ~ ~ abe i i I I I s~ Y $ I I I I I S + -- I I i u9 a k i I ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ b~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ @ ~~~ b ~d ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~p~a ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~a~ ~ ~ p ~~~~~~~FB~ ~ 9xee~ ~~gr~p~ a ~~~ ~ ~ K ~ W ~ qq bw6~ ~~ G2~ ~~ f R SY <- ~. .. J. v~'vNeVVah~vs e ::. g ~~ Deus aas •we edrs ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C a ~ ,~ ~i r- a i $_ ~~~ ~~oa~o~~ ~~o~~®~~~o®~~ ~~ 31L19NIMV7q Q' ~ e i 4 prep 4 ~~ N ~~ GPA 2007-3/ZOA 2009-2 75AE1CNIBIT 4 k a r pp~~ ~I n g ~I s~ 5~ ~FRt( Q ~ k g ~r~ ~NtlV® 00~@J 2J ~~~2J® ~~c9~®2J~ !~ ~ ~~ 311LL `JNIMrMO ~S ~ ~ S 00000 <p ~~ ~~ N W GPA 2007-3/ZOA 2009-2 75AE~j1~IT 5 ~~ ~~ '~f {7 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 2007-03 (Mav 18, 2009), GPA 2004-03 (February 2, 2009), 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). 3PA~?,puOJ~-3 IT~ 2009-2 ~ ~ ~ s cy a C ~ a ~ b a W ~q ~~ o ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~. ~ v N N 8i ~ E '" ~ c Q ~ ~ N f ~ v ~ m `0 8 V o m ~ c ~ ~ 9 $ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J m s ~~~ ~~ g b o • ~ ~ o v~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ f a ~ ? ? o ~ a 75A-12 o m in ~ a v ~n N O ~ ~ g ~ N O O O O O O ~8 N `h OOiAoo~NOnovnia~OOONO Kra ~o~~i~~~~~o ~ wx W ++ \ S ~ '^ VI ~ Q 6 ~~' ~ a 0 ~ ~ CC C ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ K _ ^ I..L ~ ~ O ~ ~ 8 > ~ '9 w '~ u~i '~ (~ A' g W ~ Q R , Yp Qmp~ ~ . ° a S .~ ~ ~ a :x~ s d 8' E N ~ ~U~LL ~ ~ 7 ~ q,.~ ~ v ~ E -yy J P! Ewa ~ .Q '$QQ g ~'~ ~ ~ f a' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ gs~t ~ °a t~ ... .^°, o ~~~USw3 w9EmEx ~cgri'~~w~ ~ .: ~ yW.,I c O g ~ ? ~ .nZ. O c " ca ~~~g~~~~xN~H oa~S~a ~~Q Q~-~o 0 5 24.1 O`~ y '~g pp m z ° ~ z f ~~ „ ~ , ~ ~, d ~UZZ~S U~USOXILLON~YSfn~~d~ Ndv~A ~b~~bdd~'n d~br~bdd~ ~' ~~~ ~ NNNN Fz~ ~ Q S 3 < a\. M, Y 75A-13 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 4~~ 1,114.1 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~~A08 May 18. 20091 7 5A-14 LAND USE ELEMENT Industrial The Industrial designation applies to those areas developed with manufacturing and industrial uses. The designation applies to areas which are predominantly industrial in character, and includes those industrial districts in the southwestern, south central and southeastern sections of the City. A total of 2,280.9 acres of land in the City is designated as Industrial. The maximum floor area ratio for this designation is 0.45. The Industrial districts of the City are vital to its economic health. These areas provide employment opportunities for local residents, and generate municipal revenues for continued economic development. As one of the County's oldest cities, Santa Ana has long been an industrial center for the region. The City's goal is to maintain this strong industrial base by setting land use policies which preclude the intrusion of less intensive commercial or residential uses. Typical uses found in this district include the following: • Light and heavy product manufacturing and assembly; and • Commercial uses which are ancillary to industrial uses in the district. Institutional The Institutional designation includes the Civic Center, other governmental facilities, City facilities and public institutions such as schools, etc. Only public properties of approximately five acres or more are designated as Institutional. The maximum applicable floor area ratio standard for this designation is 0.5. The 0.5 FAR is used as a guideline since most development in this designation are State, federal, and local governmental facilities that are not subject to local development regulations. A total of 812.6 acres of land is included in this designation. Open Space The Open Space designation is applied to parks, water channels, cemeteries and other open space uses. A total of 4~9 1,018.5 acres are included in this land use designation. Of this total, 375 acres of public park land is included in this land use designation. Revised (May 18, 2009) A~SA-15 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 3,232 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 68,498 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 a4,1-~ 52,423,126 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 18, 2009) 7 ~~_ 16 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-11 443.1 ac. 11 d.u./ac 4,875 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 Center4 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 ~3~-as: FAR 0.5-1.0 '^,~~^,^~~ ~ f 48-5A8-8~-zr~ 1,114.1 ac. 24,264,331 s.f. 48,528,662 s.f. District Center4 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 ~ ^=-~Q: ~ ~e~ ~+~ ~~~ ~ s r r ~ ~ 2,063.1 ac. 52,423,126 s.f. 104,303,060 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 ~A4S~9-,ate FAR 0.2 g~ g~ 1,018.5 ac. 8,873,172 s.f. 8,873,172 s.f. SubTotal ~-;gam--ate 4~~. 1,831.1 ac. 15,952,145 s.f. 26,570,729 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) housin units ZThe Metro East District Center allows a range of intensity for mixture of residential and com , g . mercial development based on the Metro East Mixed Use Oveday Zone development standards. ,Land use designation permits bath residential and industrial development. Build-out 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 and 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 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 (May 18, 2009) A-31 75A-17 ~~ ~ducadon 1st NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN City of Santa Ana Submitted By: Planning and Building Agency GPA 92-7/AA 1061/SP2 The following is a chronology of the approved zoning ordinance amendments that have been incorporated into this document since it was adopted by Santa Ana City Council on May 16, 1994: ZOA 2009-2 (May 4, 2009). GPA 2007-3/ZOA 2009-2 EXHIBIT 7 75A-18 NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 3.1 North Hazbor Specific Plan Fln phasis Zones 75A1=19 POSTED MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING 8 BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 (714} 667-2700 • Fax (714) 973-1461 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT MAR 2 0 2009 TOM DALY, CLERK-RECORDER By ~~ DEPUTY CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy 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: Medical Office Building Project Description: The proposed project consists on the construction of a two story, 6,002 square foot medical office building and related parking and landscape in compliance with development standards for the general commercial zone. The site will provide 36 parking spaces and have vehicular access from Jackson and Fifth Street. A zoning ordinance amendment to the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) to change the boundaries of the land use category map from Open Space to General Commercial and a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from Open Space to General Commercial are required. Project Location: Project Number: Public Review Period: Hearing Date: Hearing Location: 3417 West Fifth Street GPA 2007-3, ZOA 2009-2, ER 2006-142 March 20, 2009 to April 9, 2009 April 13, 2009 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 April 9, 2009. Please direct your comments to: Lucy Linnaus, Senior 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 Lucy Linnaus at (714) 667- 2745. GPA 2007-3/ZOA 2009-2 ~T~O MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING 8~ 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. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy MITIGATED NEGATI~/E DECLAMATION 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: GPA 2007-3, ZOA 2009-2 and ER 2006-142 Applicant: Vinh Tran Project Location /Address: 3417 West Fifth Street, Santa Ana, CA Project Title /Description: Medical Office Building The proposed project consists on the construction of a two story, 6,002 square foot medical office building and related parking and landscape in compliance with development standards for the general commercial zone. The site will provide 36 parking spaces and have vehicular access from Jackson and Fifth Street. A zoning ordinance amendment to the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) to change the boundaries of the land use category map from Open Space to General Commercial and a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from Open Space to General Commercial are required. And does hereby find: That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance. Signature: Date: Senior Planner This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 75A-21 Initial Study CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Medical office building at Jackson and Fifth Streets II. Project Numbers: GPA 2007-3, ZOA 2009-2 and ER 2006-142 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: Lucy Linnaus (714) 667-2745 V. Project Location: 3417 West Fifth Street VI. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Vinh Tran, 14522 Goldenwest Street, Westminster, CA 92683 VII. General Plan Designation: Open Space (O) VIII. Zoning: Open Space land use category of the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP-2) IX. Description of Project: The proposed project consists on the construction of a two story, 6,002 square foot medical office building and related parking and landscape in compliance with development standards for the general commercial zone. The site will provide 36 parking spaces and have vehicular access from Jackson and Fifth Street. A zoning ordinance amendment to the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) to change the boundaries of the land use category map from Open Space to General Commercial and a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from Open Space to General Commercial are required. X. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a rectangular shaped parcel composed of two lots located on the northeast corner of Jackson and Fifth Streets. The site is currently vacant, but previously developed with a restaurant and bar, originally constructed in 1970 and demolished in 2004. Vehicular access to the site if from Jackson and Fifth Street, which are listed as secondary arterial street in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The surrounding land uses include residential to the north, and commercial to the east, south and west. XI. Other agencies whose approval is required. No approval is required from outside agencies. LL\U:\LLinnaus\Environmental\Medical Building final Neg Dec.doc 7 5A-2 Initial Study 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 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 Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: 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. March 20. 2009 Signature Date Lucv Linnaus. Senior Planner Printed Name LL1U:1LLinnaus\Environmental\Medical Building final Neg Dec.dx 7 5A-2 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 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. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Negative Declaration: 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 (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (V) below, may be cross-referenced). V. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. VI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. VII. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. VIII. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. IX. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 75A-24 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics -Would the project: 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? ^ ^ ® ^ 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? 75A-25 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 air quality standard or contribute ^ substantially to an existing or projected 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? E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ number of people? IV. Biological Resources -Would the project: A. Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat ^ modifications, any endangered, rare or threatened species, as listed on Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (section 670.2 or 670.5) or in the Title 50, code of Federal Regulations (section 17.11 or 17.12)? 1 B. 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? 75A-26 ® ^ ® ^ ® ^ ® ^ Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources C. 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? ess than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ^ ^ D. 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? E. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? F. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? G. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ^ Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? V. Cultural Resources -Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register or Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? Less Than Significant Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ No Impact 75A-27 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues ~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ® ^ ^ significance of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person? C. Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological ^ ® ^ ^ resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including those ^ ® ^ ^ interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of 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. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ 5. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ Flooding, including flooding as a result of the ^ ^ ^ 6. failure of a levee or dam? 75A-28 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Wildland fires, including where wildfires are ^ ^ ^ adjacent to urbanized areas and where 7. residences are intermixed with wildland? 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. Is the project located on expansive soil creating ^ substantial risks to life and property? F. 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? 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. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous ^ emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 75A-29 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D. Is the project 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? Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ E. Is the 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? F. For a project located within the vicinity of a private ^ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ^ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? H. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, ^ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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)? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Impact 75A-30 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ^ ^ ® ^ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? D. 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? E. Create or contribute runoff water which would ^ ^ ® ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? 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? 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? 75A-31 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources X. Mineral Resources -Would the project: A. Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? B. 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? 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? ® ^ ® ^ ^ ^ 75A-32 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact F. Fora project located within the vicinity of an ^ ^ ^ airstrip, 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? 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? ^ ^ ^ 75A-33 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 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 due 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)? 75A-34 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. Has the wastewater treatment provider which ^ serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient ^ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal? 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ® ^ ^ 75A-35 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 75A-36 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 Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element No. EIR 97-1. I. Aesthetics- A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a State highway? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR, there are no scenic vistas within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The Santa Ana Interstate Freeway (I-5), Orange Freeway (SR-57), Newport Freeway (SR-55), and Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) are the four 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 surrounding? D. Create a new source of substantial nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact visual character or quality of the site and its light or glare, which would adversely affect day or The proposed project will alter the visual quality of the site, but impacts are anticipated to be beneficial, not adverse. The project will replace a vacant site with a new two story development that has been reviewed by the City's Development Review Committee who has determined that the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding area. 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 Based on a site visit conducted by City staff, the proposed project site is currently vacant. Based on City records, the site was previously improved with a restaurant and bar that were demolished in 2004. The project site is not currently zoned for agricultural purposes and there is not record of the site having been used for agricultural purposes. 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. 75A-37 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 project would not impact the population or growth projections in the General Plan as the project is a medical office building. Therefore, approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment 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 (including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 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 Tons/ Operations Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day Reactive Organic Com ounds ROG 75 2.5 55 Nitro en Oxides NOx 100 2.5 55 Carbon Monoxide CO 550 24.75 550 Respirable 10-micron dia. articulate Matter PM10 150 6.75 150 Fine 2.5-micron diameter 55 55 articulate matter Oxides of Sulfur Sox 150 150 75A-38 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 and the operation of outdoor maintenance equipment. The proposed project would add 6,002 square feet of area. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed area would be less than SCAQMD's threshold of significance, therefore the operational impacts is less than significant. Short-term Constructed Related Air Quality 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 phase, though pollutants are also expected during the vertical construction, exterior finishing and the installation of landscaping improvements and paving. 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. The proposed project would require re-grading of 19,810 square feet of lot area only. The amount of grading 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 mitigation measures shall be implemented. MM AQ-1 As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403- Fugitive Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air. These measures include the following: ^ Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas ^ Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas ^ Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily ^ Covering all stock piles with tarp ^ Sweep streets adjacent to the project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ^ Cover or have water applied to the exposed surface of all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas ^ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip MM AQ-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. 75A-39 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance MM AQ-3 During grading, the construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of any grading permit wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site and/or around areas being graded. Mitigation measure MM AQ-5 would require all construction equipment be maintained in proper tune and be turned off when not in use to reduce vehicular emissions. MM AQ-5 During construction, operators of any gas or diesel fueled equipment, including vehicles, shall be encouraged to turn off equipment if not in use or left idle for more than five minutes. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation measure MM AQ-6 would require the use of low-volatile-organic-compound (VOC) paints on all exterior surfaces at the proposed project site. MM AQ-6 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have aloes-VOC rating. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Finally, objectionable odors are a localized phenomenon and are generally confined to the vicinity of the emitter of the odor. The proposed project is an office land use and would not generate significant long- term operational odors. Construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Although construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of interior and exterior architectural coatings, these emissions would be temporary in nature, would generally be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Compliance with City of Santa Ana required maintenance and waste management practices would reduce the potential for objectionable odors. The operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 with regard to odors. In general, operational activities associated with land uses similar to the proposed project do not ordinarily emit offensive odors and as such, this impact would be considered less than significant. IV. Biological Resources A. Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any endangered, rare or threatened species, as listed on Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (section 670.2 or 670.5) or in the Title 50, code of Federal Regulations (section 17.11 or 17.12)? B. 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? C. 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? D. 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? 75A-40 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance E. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? F. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? G. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 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. The site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar constructed in 1970 and demolished in 2004, at which time, the site was cleared of all vegetation. The property does not contain potential for nesting birds, as there are no trees on the site. In addition, the property is surrounded by development and a major roadway. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on the proposed site. Finally, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the project site. 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 which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register or Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? No Impact The proposed project site is vacant and undeveloped. No historical resources have been identified on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an adverse change to an historical resource. B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site has already been subject to extensive disruption as it was previously developed with a building that has been demolished. As part of the demolition process, the site was excavated to a depth of at least two feet below ground level. Given the prior history of disturbance, it is likely that any archaeological resources that may have existed at one have already been disturbed. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation could potentially unearth previously undocumented resources and result in a significant impact. If archaeological resources are discovered 7 5A-41 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance during construction, the Applicant will implement the mitigation measure MM CR-1, which will ensure proper evaluation and treatment of archaeological resources, if found. MM CR-1 In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities, all earth-disturbing work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an Orange County certified archeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings and shall submit the report to the City of Santa Ana and to the South Central Coastal Information Center at the California State University at Fullerton. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. Compliance with mitigation measure MM CR-1 would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not result a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and therefore, potential impacts would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. C. Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has already been subject to extensive disruption as it was previously developed with a building that has been demolished. As part of the demolition process, the site was excavated to a depth of at least two feet below ground level. Any paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have most likely been disturbed. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation could unearth undocumented resources and result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1 would reduce any potential impact to a less-than- significant level. D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Sacred Lands File records search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission for the project site. The records search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area (included as Appendix G [Native American Heritage Commission Letter]). In addition, no formal cemeteries are known to have occupied any portion of the project site. Because the area is underlain by disturbed soils, the presence of human remains is remote. However, if remains are encountered, disturbing these remains could violate Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), as well as resulting in the destruction of a potential resource. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR- 2 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to aless-than-significant level by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, if any are discovered. MM CR-2 If human remains are unearthed, in accordance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 the applicant shall require from the construction contractor that no further 75A-42 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance disturbance will occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of the findings within 24 hours. The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. 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 and unlikely to occur. A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact Although there are no documented active faults projecting towards or transecting the site, 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 Building Code. Compliance with the California Building 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 2007 California Building Code. Additionally, a soils and geotechnical report is required as part of the plan check review for all new construction. Compliance with the recommendations of the report, including, but not limited to, measures associated with the site preparation, fill placement and compaction, temporary and permanent dewatering, groundwater, soil improvements techniques, seismic design features, excavation stability, soil stabilization, pavements, surface draining, cement type 75A-43 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance and corrosion measures, erosion control, shoring and internal bracing and plan review are required. Compliance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to a level considered less than significant. A-4. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? A-5 Landslides? A-6 Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? A-7 Wildland fires, including where wildfires are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildland? 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. Additionally, the proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a tsunami, seiche or mudflow. Impacts by tsunami are associated with proximity to the ocean. The project site is located approximately 11 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to protect the site from such impacts. The closest enclosed bodies of water that could result in an earthquake induced seiche are the Prado Dam located 16 miles northeast of the project site near the City of Corona, and the Santiago Dam located approximately 10 miles east of the project site in Silverado. The Santa Ana River Main Stem Project has implemented flood control improvements to both the Prado Dam and Lower Santa Ana River which has reduced the risk of inundation in the event of a seiche in Prado Dam. Therefore, there would be no impact to the project site as a result of overflow caused by seiche. The project site located on a parcel with limited topographical relief. The project site is not located downhill from any slope of sufficient size to cause mudflows. Finally, there are no wildlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently, development of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur. B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the soil exposed. Construction operations for the proposed project would require 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 absent appropriate measures to limit topsoil losses. All new developments in the City of Santa Ana, including the proposed project, are required to prepare a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) post-construction storm water management plan in accordance the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the city of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan (LIP) that must include all applicable post construction BMPs for this project. In addition, to the implementation and maintenance of post- construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), erosion would also be controlled by the landscaping proposed for all remaining pervious areas of the project as proposed by the applicant. Compliance with existing State, regional and local regulations, NPDES permit requirements and implementation of SWPPP-specified project-specific BMPs, together with the installation landscape in the post construction phase and on-going maintenance and monitoring of construction and subsequent post-construction BMPs would ensure that the project impacts with respect to topsoil loss and erosion would be less-than- significant. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? 7 5A-44 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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? E. Is the project located on expansive soils creating substantial risks to life and property? Less Than Significant Impact According the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is located on soils that have high/very high shrink /swell potential, high 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 is required to be prepared to identify geotechnical design recommendations to ensure the long-term geotechnical stability of the project site as well as the recommendations for site preparation, foundations and overall structural design specific to this project. The report will address the issues of liquefaction, differential settlement, and soils sampling and testing for expansive soils as they apply to the current project and provide recommendations for foundation design which will address any stability or expansive soils issues. Compliance with all the recommendations contained in the report, and compliance with Chapter 33 of the 2007 CBC, project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. F. 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 City of Santa Ana will provide sanitary sewer services to the proposed project. Accordingly, the project will not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems to dispose of wastewater and no impact would occur. 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. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D. Is the project 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 75A-45 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Approval of the proposed medical office 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. E. Is the 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? F. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? H. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport nor is it located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Additionally, the site does not currently, and would not in the future, serve a function in any emergency response or evacuation plan. The proposed driveway access would be constructed per City codes to allow adequate emergency vehicle access. The proposed project would not constrain implementation of the City's existing Emergency Management Plan. Finally, the project and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape. There are no wildlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently, development of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? E. 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 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 (LIP). All construction contractors and subcontractors are required by contract provisions to comply with the conditions of the City's LIP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality. The proposed project is required comply with the requirements of the State NPDES Permit and to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would incorporate BMPs and water quality management practices. With full compliance with the WQMP, project impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 75A-46 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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. No impacts would occur C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? D. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is generally flat and located in an urbanized area currently served by an existing storm drain system. The proposed project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and will connect to the storm drain system as required by the City regulations. As previously noted, erosion or siltation could occur during construction related earthmoving activities. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction permit and project approved SWPPP. During the site grading and construction short-term runoff impacts would be addressed through the incorporation of construction erosion and sediment control and flooding BMPs. Compliance with the permit requirements, the project's construction-related impacts of erosion and/or flooding would less than significant. 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? No Impact 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. 06002320256H. 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. The project site protected from the 1 percent annual chance flood by a levee constructed above the natural bank of the Santa Ana River to the east of the project site. Since the implementation of the proposed project would not place housing within a mapped flood hazard area, there would be no impact. IX. Land Use and Planning A. Physically divide an established community? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan? 75A-47 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Impact The project site is currently vacant, but was previously developed with a commercial development oriented towards an 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. Therefore, there would be no impact. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact The existing General Plan land use designation for the proposed project site is Open Space (OS), and the site is zoned North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2), Open Space land use category. Medical offices are not a permitted use in an Open Space zone. A General Plan Amendment (GPA) would be required to re- designate the 0.45 acre site from Open Space to General Commercial. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify the North Harbor Specific Plan would also be required. The modifications to the Specific Plan would include a modification to Figure 3.1 Emphasis zones, to change this property from Open Space land use category to General Commercial land use category. As proposed, the project would be developed with a 6,002 square foot, two story medical building. The Open Space land use category in the SP2 covered existing parks and included this parcel as a potential site for expansion of the existing parks. The City's ability to acquire land and develop it into parkland in the last 15 years since SP2 was adopted has been severely constrained. As mentioned earlier, the project site was previously developed with a restaurant use since the 1970's, which was destroyed by fire in 2004. This site is the only vacant site in the entire block and has resulted in a disruption of the commercial development of Fifth Street. While the proposed project would result in a minor decrease in the City's inventory of open space, it would not be in conflict with land use policies included in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The project would be consistent the following Goals and Policies: _ General Plan Pommies proj~ consrstexy LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 2 Promote land uses which enhance the city's economic and fiscal viability Policy 2.10. Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. Proposed development would be designed in a manner which is harmonious in character and scale with existing development in the area. The design of the proposed medical building is contemporary which enhances the commercial corridor, and it is two stories in height, which is in scale with the adjacent commercial building and the single family uses to the north. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 75A-48 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance General Plan Por<cks p~~, Goal 3 Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods The proposed project will significantly improve the appearance and character of the project site through the installation of landscape, the Policy 3.1 Support development construction of well-designed commercial structure and the provision of which provides a positive a safe parking lot. The proposed development would make a positive contribution to neighborhood contribution the neighborhood in that the location of the parking would character and identity. create an appropriate buffering of the adjacent single family residential uses, while supporting the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.5. Encourage new development and/or additions to As a two story contemporary medical office building, the proposed existing development that are development would be compatible scale and harmonious with the compatible in scale, and consistent architectural style and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The with the architectural style and proposed project would not conflict with this policy. character of the neighborhood. Goal 5 Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated The proposed project would provide an additional amenity to the Policy 5.1. Promote development community on a site that has remained vacant and underutilized for which has a net community benefit, over five years. By providing a quality development on a previously and enhances the quality of life. vacant site, the proposed project would result in a net community benefit to the City's residents. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy. The proposed project would be located on a parcel of land bounded to the north by single family residential uses and commercial uses to the Policy 5.2. Protect the community east and west. The proposed project would result in a medical building from incompatible land uses. adjacent to the streets and the parking lot to the north creating a buffer between the residential uses and the commercial corridor on Fifth Street. This use is compatible with development surrounding the project site. The project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.5. Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. X. Mineral Resources The proposed project would be located on a parcel of land bounded on the north by single family residential uses and on the east and west by commercial uses. The proposed project would result in a medical building adjacent to the streets and the parking lot to the north creating a buffer between the residential uses and the commercial corridor on Fifth Street. This use is compatible with development surrounding the project site and would support residential uses to the north, and commercial uses to the east and west. The project would not conflict with this policy. A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? B. 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 75A-49 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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. As the project site does not contain any natural mineral resources, no impact would occur 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. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 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 Git 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. 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. The Municipal Code recognizes that some forms of noise are required for urban development and maintenance and are difficult to control. Section 18-314(e) exempts noise sources associated with 75A-50 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, but establishes certain requirements to reduce the temporary impacts of construction noise. These include limiting the construction activity, including all warming up and repair of construction equipment within the project site so that they 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. To further reduce potential noise impacts on adjacent residences, the following project requirements and mitigation measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project: MM NOI-1 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: ^ Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants of all developed land uses immediately bordering or directly across the street from the project site area providing a schedule for major construction activities that will occur through the duration of the construction period. In addition, the notification will include the identification and contact number for a community liaison and designated construction manager that would be available on site to monitor construction activities. The construction manager will be located at the on-site construction office during construction hours for the duration of all construction activities. Contract information for the community liaison and construction manager will be located at the construction office, City Hall, and the police department. ^ Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. ^ Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from the adjacent residential uses. ^ Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, noise barriers or noise blankets. MM NOI-2 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas, along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the project site, are located as far away from vibration- and noise-sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City. MM NOI-3 The Applicant shall require by contract specification that construction activities generating the loudest noise levels (e.g. site grading) shall not occur prior to 9:00 A.M. or after 5:00 P.nn. Monday through Friday. Further, such activities shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. MM NOI-4 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that no delivery of materials or maintenance of equipment shall occur at the project site after 6:00 F.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, before 7:00 A.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays. Pursuant to mitigation measure MM NOI-1, the implementation of noise attenuation measures may include the use of noise barriers (e.g., sound walls) or noise blankets. As a general rule, a sound wall is able to reduce noise by 5 dBA. In addition, mitigation measure MM NOI-2 requires location of construction staging areas and earthmoving equipment as far away from noise and vibration-sensitive land uses as possible to reduce construction-related noise levels. Additionally, implementation of MM NOI-3 would require that the construction contractor limit the loudest construction activities to occur 75A-51 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to reduce construction noise during times when sensitive receptors would be most sensitive to elevated noise levels. Implementation of MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, and MM NOI-4 would ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance for construction activity and reduce, to the extent feasible, impacts associated with construction activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project to aless-than-significant level. 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. Less than Significant Impact The construction of the proposed project would involve conventional construction equipment, that generates vibration velocity not generally exceeding the threshold of perception resulting in less than significant ground borne vibration impacts. During operation of the proposed project, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 Vd6, which is typical of an urban environment. This is substantially less than the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance. Groundborne vibration resulting from operation of the proposed project would primarily be generated by automobiles entering and leaving the site, occasional truck deliveries, and trash removal. No substantial sources of groundborne vibration would be included in the design of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on-site or off-site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. 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? F. For a project located within the vicinity of an airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact There are no private or 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 not located within atwo-mile radius of the airport or airstrip. 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? 75A-52 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Impact The proposed project would replace a previous commercial 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, as there are no residential units or residents on the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur 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. 8 located at 501 North Newhope is the closest fire station to 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. Police Protection: Less than Significant Impact The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police protection services. The Police Department has under existing levels of manpower and equipment; they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services for the proposed project. Through the City's development review process, the Police Department has reviewed the proposed project for adequate police protection facilities and services. Compliance with Police Department's requirements would reduce potential police protection impacts to a level considered less than significant. Schools, Parks and Other facilities: No Impact The proposed project involves the construction of a medical office building. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate demand for additional school services above the current conditions, No adverse impacts to schools or other public services would occur. Additionally, the implementation of the proposed project would not increase demands for existing recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional recreation 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. 75A-53 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Impact The proposed project is the construction of a medical office building. 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. Transportation/Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact The City's Public Works Agency, Traffic and Transportation Engineering Section has reviewed this project for its potential traffic impacts. Based on their review, the implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the number of vehicle trips in the project area. Table B below shows the increase in traffic associated with the proposed square footage. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to change the level of service at any roadway segment or intersection within the project area. Table B SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Tri Generation Rates Pro' ect Tri Generation A M P M AM P M Land Use Unit Quantity SF Dail In Out In Out Dail In Out In Out Medical-Dental Office Buildin KSF 6,080 36.13 1.96 0.52 1.00 2.72 220 12 3 6 17 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 or private airports in the City of Santa Ana; however, John Wayne International Airport is located one-mile southwest of city limits. The proposed project is not located within atwo-mile radius of any airport or airstrips and does not include any structures of substantial height which might interfere with an existing airspace or flight pattern. The maximum height of the proposed building is 31 feet. No impact would occur. D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact 75A-54 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Implementation of the proposed project would not require any roadway or intersection improvements that would pose safety hazards to pedestrians or motorist in 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 36 parking stalls. The project would provide 36 parking stalls; therefore the project complies with the City's parking requirement. No adverse parking impacts would be associated with the proposed project. 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) is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing of the wastewater generated by 2.5 million people living in a 470 square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County. The wastewater generated in the project area is transported to, and treated at, OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. 1, in the City of Fountain Valley. This plant has a design capacity of 180 million gallons per day (mgd). If Plant No. 1 is operating at capacity, sewage is diverted to Treatment Plant No. 2 75A-55 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance in Huntington Beach. As such, OCSD regulates wastewater treatment for the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project would be required to provide sewer connection fees with the city and the OCSD. 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 would not increase wastewater demands in the project area over the last approved use on the site. 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 last approved use on the site. Because this site had a previous commercial use developed, the water demands for a commercial use are accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste collection services to the project site. Solid waste is transported to the Environmental Service transfer station in Irvine, and then taken 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. Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is currently undeveloped, however, the site has been heavily disturbed in the past with a previous development and its subsequent demolition and re-compacting of the soil. 75A-56 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce habitat of fish or wildlife species in that there are no fish, wildlife populations or cultural resources known to exist on the project site. Although the possibility exists for archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to be uncovered during excavation and grading activities, the project includes mitigation measures as part of implementation that would reduce any potential impacts associated with the discovery of any unexpected cultural resources that may still remain. As a result, impacts related to this threshold would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures other than those already identified are required. B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Less-Than-Significant Impact The proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. Those threshold areas where the proposed project would have aless-than-significant impact are specific to the specific project site conditions and the type of use proposed; these impacts do not combine with impacts from other projects to cause a cumulative effect. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 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. No additional mitigation measures beyond those identified are required. 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. 060023202564H City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee, September 2008 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines, January 1999 Site Visit by Lucy Linnaus, Senior Planner, September 2008 75A-57 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Integrated Waste Management Solid Waste Generation Rate City of Santa Ana 2000 Urban Water Management Plan XX. PREPARERS Lucy Linnaus, City of Santa Ana, Senior Planner Shahir Gobran, City of Santa Ana, Senior Transportation Analyst 75A-58 MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2006-142 Compliance MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY APPROVAL Prior to issuance of Gradin Permit and durin cons truction MM AQ-1 As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District Public Works (SCAQMD) Rule 403-Fugitive Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air. These measures include the following: ^ Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas ^ Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas ^ Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily ^ Covering all stock piles with tarp ^ Sweep streets adjacent to the project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ^ Cover or have water applied to the exposed sun`ace of all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas ^ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. MM AQ-2 All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period Public Works of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. MM AQ-3 During grading, the construction disturbance area shall be Public Works kept as small as possible. MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of any grading permit wind barriers shall be Public Works installed along the perimeter of the site and/or around areas being graded. MM AQ-5 During construction, operators of any gas or diesel fueled Public Works equipment, including vehicles, shall be encouraged to turn off equipment if not in use or left idle for more than five minutes. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. MM CR-1 In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are Planning unearthed during project subsurface activities, all earth- Division disturbing work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an Orange County certified archeolo ist has been rovided the o ortunit to assess the Mitigation Monitoring 75A-59 Mitigation Monitoring Plan For CEQA Compliance significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings and shall submit the report to the City of Santa Ana and to the South Central Coastal Information Center at the California State University at Fullerton. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. MM CR-2 If human remains are unearthed, in accordance with State Planning Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 the applicant shall Division require from the construction contractor that no further disturbance will occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of the findings within 24 hours. The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. MM NOI-1 The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the Public Works following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: ^ Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants of all developed land uses immediately bordering or directly across the street from the project site area providing a schedule for major construction activities that will occur through the duration of the construction period. In addition, the notification will include the identification and contact number for a community liaison and designated construction manager that would be available on site to monitor construction activities. The construction manager will be located at the on-site construction office during construction hours for the duration of all construction activities. Contract information for the community liaison and construction manager will be located at the construction office, City Hall, and the police department. ^ Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. ^ Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from the 75A-60 Mitigation Monitoring Plan For CEQA Compliance adjacent residential uses. ^ Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, noise barriers or noise blankets. MM NOI-2 The applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas, along with the operation of Public Works earthmoving equipment within the project site, are located as far away from vibration- and noise-sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City. MM NOI-3 The applicant shall require by contract specification that construction activities generating the loudest noise levels Public Works (e.g. site grading) shall not occur prior to 9:00 a.nn. or after 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Further, such activities shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. MM NOI-4 The applicant shall require by contract specifications that no Public Works delivery of materials or maintenance of equipment shall occur at the project site after 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, before 7:00 A.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays. Prior to the issuance of the Buildin Permit MM AQ-6 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the Building architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would Division have a low-VOC rating. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 75A-61 75A-62 KO- 5/12/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- 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. 2006-142) AND AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA TO MODIFY THE LAND USE ELEMENT (GPA NO. 2007-03) 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. 2006-142, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 to allow the construction of a medical office building to be located at 3417 West Fifth Street within the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2). B. On April 14, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted by a vote of 5:0 (Alderete abstained, Gartner absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007- 03. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02. C. On May 18, 2009, 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. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to modify the Land Use Element to change the property located at 3417 West Fifth Street from Open Space (OS) to General Commercial Resolution No. 2009-XXX 75A-63 Page 1 of 4 (GC). E. The Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 is consistent with the General Plan, including but not limited to its policies and goals of: 1. Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Land Use Element Goal No. 2.0. 2. Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. Land Use Element Policy No. 2.10. 3. Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Land Use Element Goal No. 3.0. 4. Support development which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Land Use Element Policy No. 3.1. 5. Encourage new development and/or additions to existing development that is compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Land Use Element Policy No. 3.5. 6. Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. Land Use Element Goal No. 5.0. 7. Promote development which has a net community benefit, and enhances the quality of life. Land Use Element Policy No. 5.1. 8. Protect the community from incompatible land uses. Land Use Element Policy No. 5.2. 9. Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. Land Use Element Policy No. 5.5 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. Resolution No. 2009-XXX Page 2 of 4 75A-64 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. 2007-03 is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. H. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-03 also came before the City Council on May 18, 2009 for public hearing. This resolution incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the ordinance 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. 2006-142 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 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 with the implementation of the mitigation measures. 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. 2007-03. 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 18, 2009 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- 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. Resolution No. 2009-XXX 75A-65 Page 3 of 4 ADOPTED this day of 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney 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. 2009-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on . Date: Resolution No. 2009-XXX Page 4 of 4 Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75A-66 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 2007-03 (May 18, 2009), GPA 2004-03 (February 2, 2009), GPA 2008-01 (May 5, 2008), GPA 2007-02 (June 18, 2007), GPA 2007-01 (March 19, 2007), GPA 2006-0 i (October 2, 2006), GPA 2005-01 (December 5, 2005), GPA 2005-02 (October i7, 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 i8, 1999), GPA 1999-0> (August 16, 1999), GPA 1998-04 (October 5, 1998), GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998), GPA 1998-01 (May 4, 1998). 75A-67 `w a ~ ~ ~ (~ Y a C _ ~ v O m L~ °- - ~ a ~ ,~ ~ ~ W € ~ c N _ ~ ~ g L' c' 1p, v c ~ a >. ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a g ~ ~ ~ '^ f E Y ° ^ ^ o ^ c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a , D o J $~ p N J f~ ~ 'N ~~~ '~ v c c~~ 0 0 J -~ ~ f f a? Y'J ~ ~ O ~ a p J oo a~ -~o~~o~ tz ~ 75A-68 N N O m ~ N R V ~ N p N ~ 0 0 O O O O m ~ Yi n ~I \ '^ ~ !' ,,~~(( V/ W o; ~ ~ m ~ (n ~ Q 6 S ~° ~ ° ^g, ~ ~.L O ~ W N o a a g > ° ° ~ v/ ~ 0 m m ~ E _ - _ om ~ ° v ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ' w~ °j m G ~ ~ o `6 cq g °' ` ~ ~ s 5 ~ ~ m a~ F Ema '¢ ¢o~m¢>~ N d man ~= =mc~_mwoso_a ¢` mod' °'~~~ ~u`~ m ~~m~ ~c' f E o J .~~- o g ~ ~ ~ ~ • J \ u ~ d ° ,,, ~ ~- o uc ~ - a~mEO i` i° Uiw w -' + '1: ~ yg m o o a ~ o c w a C 3c 3~ ~ in o m z» >o^~e~~~8ys ~ ~ ~ f f ~n J, ~o~~mdNNrv ~d~~o~mm~~~~~ fz-~ i .~ .~~ 75A-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 1,114.1 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 18, 2009) 75A-70 LAND USE ELEMENT Industrial The Industrial designation applies to those areas developed with manufacturing and industrial uses. The designation applies to areas which are predominantly industrial in character, and includes those industrial districts in the southwestern, south central and southeastern sections of the City. A total of 2,280.9 acres of land in the City is designated as Industrial. The maximum floor area ratio for this designation is 0.45. The Industrial districts of the City are vital to its economic health. These areas provide employment opportunities for local residents, and generate municipal revenues for continued economic development. As one of the County's oldest cities, Santa Ana has long been an industrial center for the region. The City's goal is to maintain this strong industrial base by setting land use policies which preclude the intrusion of less intensive commercial or residential uses. Typical uses found in this district include the following: • Light and heavy product manufacturing and assembly; and • Commercial uses which are ancillary to industrial uses in the district. Institutional The Institutional designation includes the Civic Center, other governmental facilities, City facilities and public institutions such as schools, etc. Only public properties of approximately five acres or more are designated as Institutional. The maximum applicable floor area ratio standard for this designation is 0.5. The 0.5 FAR is used as a guideline since most development in this designation are State, federal, and local governmental facilities that are not subject to local development regulations. A total of 812.6 acres of land is included in this designation. Open Space The Open Space designation is applied to parks, water channels, cemeteries and other open space uses. A total of 1,018.5 acres are included in this land use designation. Of this total, 375 acres of public park land is included in this land use designation. Revised (May 18, 2009) A-23 75A-71 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 3,232 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 68,498 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 52,423,126 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 18, 2009) A-30 75A-72 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-11 443.1 ac. 11 d.u./ac 4,875 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 Center4 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 1,114.1 ac. FAR 0.5-1.0 24,264,331 s.f. 48,528,662 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 2,063.1 ac. 52,423,126 s.f. 104,303,060 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 Institutionals INS 812.6 ac. FAR 0.2-0.5 7,079,023 s.f. 17,697,557 s.f. Open Space OS 1,018.5 ac. FAR 0.2 8,873,172 s.f. 8,873.172 s.f. SubTotal 1,831.1 ac. 15,952,145 s.f. 26,570,729 s.f. Notes: Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the Center. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District District Center with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units The Metro East District Center allows a range of inte standards. . nsity for mixture of residential and commercial development based on the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone development ,Land use designation permits both residential and development. industrial development. Build-out assu med 50% of the land area wi ll be developed as residen tial and 50% as industrial aLand use designation permits both residential and commercial development. Build-out assumes 90 % of and area will be developed as commercial and 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 ri ht-of-wa 10 % will be developed as SEffective capacity assumes FAR of 0.2 g y. 6Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GlS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. Revised (May 18, 2009) A-31 75A-73 75A-74 ORDINANCE NO. NS- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING THE NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN (SP2) ZONING DISTRICT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3417 WEST FIFTH STREET FROM OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (ZOA NO. 2009-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The North Harbor Specific Plan (SP-2) was created in June 20, 1994. B. The Applicant is requesting adoption and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2006-142, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 to allow the construction of a medical office building to be located at 3417 West Fifth Street within the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2). C. On April 14, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted by a vote of 5:0 (Alderete abstained, Gartner absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007- 03. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02. D. On May 18, 2009, 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. E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-02 has been filed to rezone the property located at 3417 West Fifth Street which is located within the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) from its current zoning of Open Space (OS) to General Commercial (GC). A. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Environmental Review No. 2006-142, came before the City Council on May 18, 2009, and was approved and adopted by resolution at that meeting. This ordinance incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the resolution and said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation 75A-75 Monitoring Program in support of this ordinance. Section 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein is the modification to the North Harbor Specific Plan (SP2) which rezones the property located at 3417 West Fifth Street from its current zoning of Open Space (OS) to General Commercial (GC). Section 4. 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. Section 5. The city clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 75A-76 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 75A-77 ~- ~; ~~pcation l~s~ ; NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN City of Santa Ana Submitted By: Planning and Building Agency GPA 92-7/AA 1061/SP2 The following is a chronology of the approved zoning ordinance amendments that have been incorporated into this document since it was adopted by Santa Ana City Council on May 16, 1994: 75A-78 ZOA 2000-02 (May 15, 2000, NS-2428); ZOA 2007-02 (August 6, 2007, NS-2756); ZOA 2008-02 (October 6, 2008, NS-2773) and ZOA 2009-02 ( - NS- ). Exhibit A 75A-79 NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 3.1 North Harbor Specific Plan F.m phasis Zones 75d-80