Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031504 Aquisition Leashold Agmt Vinci Invest 2051-2101 E EdingerREQUEST FOR ���►�r, COUNCIVAGENCY ACTION s. MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2004 IIIrrrRl ACQUISITION OF LEASEHOLD & BUSINESS INTERESTS AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH VINCI INVESTMENTS, INC. FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2051 -2101 EAST EDINGEERR AVENUE a�4 � , gyp' it tz - l� C �tGrik-ek- CITY MANAGER 4 EXECU 1 /E DIRECTOR RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1st Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2003 -149. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION 1. Direct the Agency General Counsel to prepare and authorize the Executive Director to execute an Agreement for Acquisition of Leasehold and Business Interests with Vinci Investments, Inc., dba Honda Santa Ana for certain real property, furniture, fixtures and equipment and intangible property located at 2051 and 2101 East Edinger Avenue (APNs 402- 101 -44 & 402 - 101 -45), in the amount of $4,247,897 plus normal closing costs. 2. Direct the Agency General Counsel to prepare and authorize the Executive Director to execute a License and Right of Entry Agreement with Vinci Investments, Inc., dba Honda Santa Ana for property located at 2051 and 2101 East Edinger Avenue. 1 Acquisition of Leasehold & Business Interests and License Agreements for Certain Real Property Located at 2051 -2101 East Edinger March 15, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION On May 5, 2003 the City Council, Community Redevelopment Agency and Santa Ana Financing Authority took joint actions to approve the issuance of South Main tax allocation bonds to expand the Auto Mall. The retention and expansion of existing dealerships within the Auto Mall are critical to the long -term financial stability of the City. The bond proceeds will provide the necessary funding for the estimated cost of land acquisition, improvements and expenses related to the affected businesses along the Edinger Avenue frontage, including the subject properties. With respect to the 2051 -2101 East Edinger properties, Vinci Investments (Honda Santa Ana) has independently pursued purchase of the leasehold and business interests and has reached an agreement with the lessees (Exhibit 1) . Honda will purchase the business and building and will assume the ABC license and lease for this two -acre site. Once escrow closes, the Agency will concurrently purchase said property and business interests and rights from Honda, including the ABC license, and retain the lease rights for future expansion of the Auto Mall. The final disposition of the ABC license will be determined by the Agency Board at a later date. Additionally, it is proposed that the Agency execute a License and Right of Entry Agreement with Honda to allow it to utilize the property on a temporary basis, while negotiations for its expansion are underway. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2003 -149 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 2). 4 2 Acquisition of Leasehold & Business Interests and License Agreements for Certain Real Property Located at 2051 -2101 East Edinger March 15, 2004 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the South Main Capital Projects - Auto Mall account (account no. 552 - 936- 6611). -&Z4.� Jo P. Reekstin Executive Director Community Development Agency JPR /SDG /mlr APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: G1C� R. C ma Executi Director Finance & Management Services Agency iW H: Actions\ 2004CC\ AcgLeasehold& BusInt& LicAg= tsVinciInvestmtsfor2051- 2101EEdinger- 3 -15 -04 � 4 WILSHIRE AV. Dealer Parking 2 AC. VW Parking I AC. 9 qca TBS� <COOC I AUT VWo�r'9p�a O'li Parking t 99 isr9c Saab '9!. Dealer T N 3.99 AC. O 4.98 AC. Y A Isuzu w Hyundai m Satum 2.62 AC. H 3.0 AC. ¢ Jaguar AUTO Mq� 3.2 AC. BORCHARD AV. AUTO MALL DR 2 h 0 W VW /Audi Z 1 Volvo m 3.33 AC. Honda G 5.02 AC. (9 BMW 4.08 AC. LL R S.I I AC. a Q a ,s O 2051 -2901 Q Not Part Future Expansi nArea I- 2, �: "" 4 E.EdI er O V EDINGER AV, . 0 N SANTA ANA AUTO MALL Property Proposed for Purchase Exhibit 1 5 MAYOR H�guel P,' Pulido M;,YOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -20) P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa- ana.org CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy POSTED JUL 16 2X3 TOM 0 9 fLq, RK.RECORDER NOTICE OF INTENT I14 " ' _DEPUTY TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Specific Development No. 60 (SD -60) Amendment Project Description: The proposed project involves a zone change for multiple properties along Edinger Avenue from Light Industrial to Specific Development No. 60 (SD -60) and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend provisions and standards within the Specific Development No. 60 Zoning Document. Project Location: 1041, 1961, 2009, 2101 East Edinger Avenue Project Number: ER 2003 -149 Public Review Period: 7 -18 -2003 to 8 -6 -2003 Hearing Date: 8 -11 -2003 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 8 -6 -2003. Please direct your comments to: Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M -20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Dan Bott at (714) 667 -2700. it EXHIBIT 2 1 4 ° 603z MAYOR Miguel i . Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia lose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M -20) P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 www.sanla- ana.org � CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy POSTED JUL 16 2003 TOM D K.RECORDER DEPUTY 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: ER 2003 -149 Applicant: City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA Project Location I Address: 1941, 1961, 2009, 2101 East Edinger Project Title I Description: Specific Development No.60 (SD -60) Amendment And does hereby find: That the proposed project cannot, or will not, have a significant effect on the environment. Negative Declaration status is ,therefore granted for this project. No mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. Date: Signature: Environmental Coordinator This determination is not final until adopted by the decision - making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. E EXHIBIT 2 2 CS 60G2 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT No. 60 (SD -60) AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY ER 2003 -149 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project involves a zone change for multiple properties along Edinger Avenue from Light Industrial to Specific Development No. 60 (SD -60) and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend provisions and standards within the Specific Development No. 60 Zoning Document and a request for the City's Redevelopment Agency to purchase an approximate 2.0 -acre property located at 2101 E. Edinger Avenue. SETTING The SD -60 project area is entirely composed of the Santa Ana Auto Mall. The Santa Ana Auto Mall consists of 38 -acres and is subdivided into 12 parcels occupied by 9 dealerships. The property is bordered by the Orange County Flood Control Channel to the North, the Costa Mesa (55) freeway and Auto Mall Drive to the East, Edinger Avenue and industrial buildings to the South and Ritchey Street to the West. The land uses within SD -60 have a General Plan designation of Industrial. The project area is located within the South Main Street Redevelopment Project Area and the City's Enterprise and Empowerment Zones. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As shown on Exhibit 1, the proposed amendment to SD -60 would expand the boundaries of the SD -60 project area by approximately 6 y4-acres. Presently, located on the 6 1/, -acres are two industrial buildings, County of Orange office building and a restaurant /nightclub. The combined area of' these uses is 91,052 square feet. The current General Plan designation for the properties is Industrial. As part of the proposed project, the City's Redevelopment Agency would purchase the 2.0 -acre property that is currently occupied by the existing restaurant /nightclub. The purchased property would be included in the amended boundaries for SD -60. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the site development standards within.SD -60 zoning document, including amending the list of permitted /conditionally permitted land uses, height restrictions, setback requirements, landscape standards, architectural design guidelines and signage requirements. The amended standards would prohibit freestanding office and light industrial land uses and land uses that would not be complimentary to large automotive dealership environment. EXHIBIT 2 3 The proposed amendment to SD -60 would not increase the maximum level of development intensity permitted within the SD -60 project area. Existing land uses and the proposed land uses to be incorporated into SD -60 would operate at their current uses and their current level of development intensity. RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following is an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment to SD -60, based upon the City of Santa Ana's Environmental Check List. 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 there are no scenic resources within the SD -60 project area. Additionally, there are no scenic resources along State Route 55 that would be impacted by the proposed project. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in adverse impacts to any - -� scenic vista or other aesthetic resources. C. Substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and it's surrounding? D. Create a new source of substantial light o would adversely affect day or nighttime views No Impact character or - glare,_ which in the area? The proposed amendment to SD -60 would not involve any land use changes or activities that would result in changes to the aesthetic environment of the Auto Mall. As part of the proposed project, the proposed amendment to SD -60 would establish architectural and landscape standards to minimize aesthetic impacts. II. AGRICULTURE A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agriculture use? 1 EXHIBIT 2 4 m, B. Conflict with existing Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes due to their location cumulatively result in use? No Impact zoning for agriculture use or a in the existing environment, which, or nature, could individually or loss of Farmland, to non - agriculture According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no prime or unique farmlands within SD -60 project area. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in adverse impacts to any agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? 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 growth projections provided in local general plans and regional planning programs. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results -in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in local general plans and regional planning programs. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not be in conflict with the General Plan and would not result in growth projections beyond those identified in the General Plan and therefore, 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? it EXHIBIT 2 5 D. Expose Sensitive concentrations? E. Create objectionable of people? No Impact receptors to substantial pollutant odors affecting a substantial number Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in land use changes or changes in development intensities that would increase long -term operational air quality impacts within SD -60 project area. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve any construction activities that would increase short - term air quality and odor impacts. III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact According to the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base, the SD -60 project area does not contain any sensitive biological resources. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not have any direct or indirect impacts on biological resources. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 12 EXHIBIT 2 6 B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No Impact According to the Federal Register of Historic Resources, City of Santa Ana Local Register of Historical Resources and the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no known cultural resources within the SD -60 project area. Additionally, the SD -60 project area is currently builtout. The probability for the discovery of unknown resources would be low. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in any impacts to known or unknown cultural resources. IV. GEOLOGY /SOILS (A -1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (A -4) Landslides No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no active earthquake faults, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Zones or landslides within the SD -60 project area~ Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not be subject to ground rupture impacts or landslide impacts. (A -2) A -2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? No Impact The SD -60 project area is situated within an active seismic region of southern California. According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there,are 38 active faults within a 60- mile radius of the City of Santa Ana. The Newport- Inglewood Fault located eight miles south of the City is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regards to potential seismic shaking impacts. The Newport - Inglewood fault is postulated as having the potential to generate a maximum credible earthquake 13 EXHIBIT 2 7 magnitude of 6.3. The project area could potentially be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake occurs along the Newport - Inglewood Fault or one of the nearby faults in the southern California region. However, the seismic risk at the SD -60 project area is not considered significantly different from other areas in the region. The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD -60 project area and would not increase the risk the potential for seismic impacts, beyond the current level of risk. (A -3) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the proposed SD -60 project area is considered to have High -to -Very High potential for liquefaction impacts. The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD -60 project area and would not increase the risk for potential liquefaction impacts, beyond the current level of risk. B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not increase the potential for soil erosion or sedimentation impacts, in that the proposed amendment would not involve any construction activities that would uncover soils. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no unique geologic features within the SD -60 project area. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in the loss of any unique geologic features. D. In the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? No Impact According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the SD -60 project area consists of Chino Silty Clay Loam Soils that have moderate shrink /swell potential, high corrosion potential to uncoated steel and low potential for corrosion to concrete. The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD -60 project area. The proposed project would not involve any new construction that would subject to geotechnical constraints within the SD -60 project area. V. HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD -60 project area. Two of the properties proposed to be included in SD -60 were former service stations. Presently, at one of the properties ground water monitoring is being conducted as part of ongoing remediation of- the property. Approval of the proposed amendment to Sd -60 would not impact ongoing remediation efforts. The properties proposed to be included in SD -60 have historically involved industrial uses involving the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Some of these properties may require remediation. The handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and the remediation of hazardous substances on contaminated properties would be subject to the local, state and federal regulations. Approval of the proposed 1 EXHIBIT 2 9 amendment to SD -60 would involve any land use changes or construction activities that would create significant hazardous material safety impacts to the public. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the SD -60 project area is not located within any aircraft accident potential zones or crash zones. However, according to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the SD -60 project area is located within a FAA Notification Area. The FAA has established height criteria to determine potential conflicts with air navigation. The existing buildings incorporated into the SD -60 project area are no more than two stores in height and would not be in conflict height criteria established by the FAA. VI. HYDROLOGY /WATER QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not directly result in any adverse water quality impacts, in that the proposed project would not involve any activities that would result in potential water quality impacts. 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 Approval and implementation of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not impact underground water supplies, in that the SD -60 project area is not located in areas where there are no underground water supplies or underground water recharge areas. EXHIBIT 2 10 C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off -site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or 'planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run -off? No Impact The SD -60 project area is currently improved with drainage facilities. The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing buildings into the SD -60 project area.Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not directly alter existing drainage patterns or directly increase existing rates of surface water runoff. E. 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? F. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact According to Flood Rate Insurance Map 06059CO038F the SD -60 project area is not situated within a 100 -year flood Zone.- - Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not be subject to 100 -year flood risks. VII. LAND USE /PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not physically divide any established communities or neighborhoods, in that SD- 60 is currently void of residential land uses. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 17 EXHIBIT 2 11 adopted for the purpose environmental effect? No Impact of avoiding or mitigating an The proposed amendment to SD -60 would expand the boundaries of the SD -60 project area by approximately 6 %- acres. Presently, located on the 6 N -acres are two industrial. buildings, County of Orange office buildings and a restaurant /nightclub. The current General Plan designation for the properties is Industrial, which is consistent with the City's General Plan designation for SD- 60. Approval of the proposed project would not be in conflict with the General Plan. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans established within the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not be in conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact The City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR identifies that there are no areas in Santa Ana that contains Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, approval of the — proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in adverse impacts to any mineral resources. IX. 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. 1s EXHIBIT 2 12 B. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. C. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not directly result in any short -term or long -term noise impacts or excessive groundborne vibration impacts, in that the proposed project would not involve any changes in land uses, changes in development intensities or construction activities that would increase long -term or short -term noise levels within the SD -60 project area. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The City of Santa Ana is located just southeast of John Wayne Airport. According to the Orange County Airports Environs Land Use Plan, there are no areas within the City that are within the noise impact area or 65 CNEL of John Wayne Airport. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD- 60,would not expose people within the SD -60 project area to excessive aircraft noise impacts. X. POPULATION /HOUSING A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact EXHIBIT 2 13 The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses buildings into the SD -60 project area, which are consistent with the City's General Plan. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not induce substantial growth in the City, beyond what is projected in the General Plan. Additionally, the SD -60 project area is void of residential land uses. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not displace existing residential uses or population. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities No Impact The proposed amendment to SD -60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD -60 project area. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not involve any land use changes or changes in development intensities that would generate additional demands for public services over current levels of demand within project area. XII. RECREATION A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not directly - increase the demand for recreational facilities, in that the proposed project does not involve any land use changes or activities that would increase the demands for recreational facilities. XIII. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? EXHIBIT 2 14 B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature E. Result in inadequate emergency access F. Result in inadequate parking capacity G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No Impact The proposed project would incorporate existing land uses into the SD -60 project area. Approval of the proposed project would not involve any land use change or changes in land use intensities that would generate additional traffic. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not have a direct impact on traffic volumes, roadway configurations, emergency access or level of services established in the County of Orange Congestion Management Plan or alternative modes of transportation within the project area. 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 Approval proposed amendment to SD -60 would not have any adverse impacts on air traffic patterns, in that the existing buildings incorporated into the SD -60 project area are no more than 2- stories in height and would not interfere with air traffic patterns. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in impacts to parking facilities in that the proposed project does not involve any land use changes or changes in development intensities that would increase existing parking demands. XIV. UTILITIES /SERVICE SYSTEMS A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 21 EXHIBIT 2 15 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. 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? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not generate additional demands for utility service systems over current levels of service being provided, in that the proposed project does not involve any land use changes or changes in land use intensities that would increase the demands for utility service systems. XV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not have an impact on any plant or wildlife species or known cultural resources, in that the SD -60 project area is not known to contain any sensitive plant, wildlife or cultural resources. z2 EXHIBIT 2 16 B. Does the project have impacts but cumulatively considerable? No Impact that are individually limited Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not result in any significant cumulative impacts, in that the proposed project does not of involve any land use changes or changes in land use intensities that would increase cumulative impacts within the SD -60 project area. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD -60 would not directly cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings in that the proposed project would not involve any activities that would cause adverse impacts on human beings. XVIII. DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. XVIV. REFERENCES City of Santa Ana General Plan September 1982 Environmental Impact report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Site visit July 2003 by Dan Bott California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity data Base South Coast Air Quality Management Plan zi EXIIIBIT 2 17 California Department of Conservation Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program Federal register of Historic Resources City of Santa Ana Local register of Historic Resources Flood rate insurance Map 06059C0038F Orange County Airports Environs Land Use Plan XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator City of Santa Ana 24 EXHIBIT 2 18 PLANNING DIVISION Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Project Title: Specific Development No.60 (SD -60) Amendment 11. Project Numbers: ER 2003 -149 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M -20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bott (714) 667 -2719 V. Location: 1941, 1961,2009,2101 East Edinger Avenue VI. Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A. 17/1 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. r- \ Printed Name z EXHIBIT 2 19 Date P<ge , of 1 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics —Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ (�}rr( B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ ��I ticc 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 26 EXHIBIT 2 and \msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 20 Page 1 of 10 ri Issues & Supporting Information Sources Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. Agricultural Resources — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non- agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ❑ ❑ ❑ rat' 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? = Air Quality — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or III. pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ _ i�{ applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion j (' Management Plan? B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ I'ti� contribute to an existing or proposed air quality Y j violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ❑ �(f of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? 27 EXHIBIT 2 and \msword \envcheck.docU. 15.99 21 Page 2 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? IV. Biological Resources — Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ El . protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? V. Cultural Resources —Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑{ paleontogical resource or site? } 28 and \msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 Page 3 of 10 22 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils —Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? md\msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 23 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ Potentially ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ ❑ Potentially Unless Less Than ❑ Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 4 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant , Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials —Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ fQi acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste !"( within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ r hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to J�1 Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ i or where such a plan has not been adopted, within j two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality — Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ — interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? and \msword \envcheck.doc\1.15. 99 EXHIBIT 2 Page 5 of 10 24 Issues & Supporting Information Sources Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off - site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run -off? E. 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? F. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 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? Potentially Significant Impact El Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k ❑ J El ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or natural community conservation plan? 7 C X. Mineral Resources —Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ lyl important mineral resource recovery site J delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? and \mswordlenvcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 Page 6 of 10 25 Issues & Supporting Information Sources Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XI. Noise — Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? . B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 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? Al. 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? and \msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 e3 2s EXHIBIT 2 26 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ [ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ K ME ❑ ❑ A — ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 ❑ ❑ ❑ n ❑ ❑ r� Page 7 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ I}� relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections ?) 3 and \msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 Page 8 of 10 27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact All. Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ El impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ �{ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑� Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ r�if neighborhood and regional parks or other y� 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ I}� relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections ?) 3 and \msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 Page 8 of 10 27 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Impact A� �I 1', >:1 NA Page 9 of 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Su pportin g Information Sources Significant Impact Incorporated ct Significant Impact B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVL Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E. Result in the determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 3 and \msword \envcheck.doc \1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 28 No Impact A� �I 1', >:1 NA Page 9 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ t� quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). C. Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ I will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? md\msword\e nvcheck.doc\ 1. 15.99 3 EXHIBIT 2 29 Page 10 of 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ i p� permitted capacity to accommodate the project's j sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ray regulations related to solid waste? y`` XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ t� quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). C. Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ I will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? md\msword\e nvcheck.doc\ 1. 15.99 3 EXHIBIT 2 29 Page 10 of 10 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss. County of Orange ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of The Orange County Register , a newspaper of general circulation , published in the city of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange , State of. California, under the date of November 19, 1905, Case No. A- 21046, that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has. been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: July 18, 2003 "I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct": Executed at Santa Ana, Orange . County, California, on Date: July 18, 2093. Signature The Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 796 -7000 ext. 2209 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp RECEIVED JUL 2 12003 SANTA ANA PLANNING DEPT NOTICE OF IN - TO ADOPT A NEOATM DECIAEATION Proof of Publication o .rnu u to inrom: ui. g:rror.l; Pubik that the Ciy of Sente. Ana Wproposes to adopt a, Negative Dedarallon tor. the following Prof- 1 EXHIBIT 2 30 M za,. Hearin Date: The Nagativa Decflon and Wit SNdy as wall n all relerenced doc hate will be avatlabl. la WWb6e ro- view at the city of Sanla Ana, c Iowted at 20 CNIa uenw Plaza. Santa Ana, CWNWJa. I Please submit am/ com- ments on the Negarne Decla- mbon to Ne City on or be- fore 8-62009. Please Erect your commenb b: Den Don, Environmental Coordinator, Mao( Santa A P.O. Boxl 1968 na, , M -20. Sonm Ana. CA. 92]02. II you have any quesGOro or would like any additional in- appletat ("4) 66]Q Y00. BM Nbliah: Orange County Reg- ister July 16, 2009 ! RI74215a02612