The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75B - PH - AMEND ZONING 2001 W MACARTHURREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2017 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2017-01 FOR THE ARTISAN AT SOUTH COAST A 42 - UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 2001 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD — SHEA HOMES, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2, 5; 5,z3} CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ,❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1� Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2n° Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At its regular meeting on September 11, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 to amend standards within the Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4) zoning district and adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 as conditioned to allow The Artisan at South Coast residential project at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard. The Planning Commission added two conditions of approval to the tentative map. The first condition is the addition of language to the CC&R's requiring that the two -car garages to be used for parking only. A second condition requiring an amendment to the traffic study to analyze the potential for a stop sign at the intersection of Jaguar Way and the entry/exit to the community was also added (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION Shea Homes is proposing to construct the Artisan at South Coast, a 42 -unit, single-family residential development within a gated community. The residences will range in size from 2,819 square feet to 3,038 square feet, will be two stories high, and will contain a minimum of three bedrooms and four bathrooms. Plan 1 will have a flex space that can be used as either a fourth bedroom or a den, with the Plan 2 incorporating an "In -Law Suite" into the residences. Four parking spaces will be provided for each unit, with two spaces in the garage and two spaces in the 7513-1 ZOA No. 2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 — The Artisan at South Coast Residential Project at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard October 3, 2017 Page 2 driveway. Four different architectural styles have been provided for this development, including a Spanish, Monterey, English Revival and Prairie themed product. The project will also include a 7,053 -square -foot lot that will be dedicated as an open space amenity for the development. The parcel will include features such as a tot lot, fitness park, open play turf area and a boulder garden. Full-sized plans are available for public viewing in the Clerk of the Council Office. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #3 - Economic Development, Objective #2 (create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies), Objective #5 (leverage private investment that results in tax base expansion and job creation citywide); and Goal #5 - Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability, Objective #3 (facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserve and improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Candida Neal, AICP Acting Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb S:RFCA\10-03-17\ZOA17-02 TTM17-01 The Artisan at So Coast.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Ordinance C. Resolution 75B-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11,,2017 TITLE: PUBLIC:HEARING — FILED BY SHEA HOMES F.OR- ZONING"ORDINANCEAMENDMENT NO. -2017-02 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO„ 2017-01 FOR - THE -ARTISAN AT SOUTH COAST RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT2001 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD {STRATEGIC.PLAN NOS. 3,2; 3,6; 5,3) Prepared by Vince Fregoso Acting Executive hector RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend'that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing, For DENIED El Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Acting P nnm anager 1. Adopt an ordinance, approving ZoningOrdinance Amendment No. 2017-01 2. Adopta resolution approving Tentative.Tract Map No. 2017-01 as conditioned. Executive Summary Gina Gordon, on behalf of Shea Homes; is requesting approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to amend :standards within the Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4) -zoning district, as well as` a, tentative ,tract. map to a11ow The. Artisan at South Coa" f a 42 -unit, single family residential development at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard; Based on the analysis of the proposal, staff is recommending approval of the request to allow :the proposed development project due to :its consistency with the General Plan and compliance.with. the intent of the SD74 zoning district. Table 1: Project and Location Information Item �� - ;Inforri�atlon+ ' Project Addresses 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard - Nearest Intersection MacArthur Boulevard and Jaguar Wa General Plan Designation Low Density Residential LR -7) Zonin Designation Specific De I menl-No.4 SD-4JArmstron Ranch) Surrounding Land .Use s. (Exhibit 2) North Church/Birt Ie=Family: Residential and a YMCA East I Single-Farmiy Residential South Single and Multi -Family Residential and Greenville Elemental .School West I Se erslrom High School Property Size 6.7 -acres EXHIBIT A 75B-3 ZoA No. 2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 September 11 i,2017 Page 2 Fltiihf: Infdr-Matibn_ ' Existing.Site Development The site is currently 15 -acre parcel of land that'contafns the Christ Our Savior Church on the northern section of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. Use Permissions SinglenFamily Single-FamilyResidential.is en-6itted in the SD4 zoning district. Zoning Code Sections Affected .Uses I SAMC Section 41-593 Operational Standards I SAMC Sections 41-593.3, Project Description Shea Homes is requesting approval of The Artisan at South Coast; a 42 -unit, single-family residential development within a gated, community. The residences will range in size from 2,819 square feet to 3;038 square feet. Each residence will be two stories high and will contain a minimum of three bedrooms.and four bathrooms. The Plan 1 model will have a flex space that can be used as either a fourth bedroom or a den,'with the Plan 2 model incorporating an "In=Law Suite" into'the residences. Four parking spaces will be provided for each unit, with two spaces located within the garage and,two..spaces in the driveway. Four different architectural styles have been provided for this development, including a Spanish, Monterey,. English Revival and Prairie themed product. All four products will incorporate enhanced architectural elements, including complete. architectural treatments on all sides of the structures. The architecture and, color selections 'have; been designed to fit within the: context of the surrounding area and will enhance the aesthetic and functional appeal of the community. The elevations_ have been designed with differentiated architectural elements to make each style distinctive. To facilitate the sale of the residences, the lot is proposed to be subdivided into 42 single-family lots that will -range in size from 4,01g square feet to 8,608 square feet. Overall, the lots will average 4,677 square feet, which is less than the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet typically required in the City. The project will also include a 7,053 -square -foot lot that will be dedicated as an open space amenity for the development. The open space parcel will ,provide a recreational amenity to the community. The parcel will include features such as a tot lot, fitness park, open play turf area and a boulder garden. Additional enhancements and amenities such as decorative paving, shade structures :and enhanced landscaping will 'also be incorporated into the overall project design. Landscape colors and materials have been selected that will be in harmony with the architecture with pedestrian pathways linking the common area and residences. 75B-4 ZOA No. '2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 September 11, 2017 Page 3, Table,2:Develooment:Standards Standard Re uired=b .,SAMC Provided': Permitted Uses Agriculture, Single -Family Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Complies Lot Size 6,000 square feet 4.01 9 -square -foot minimum Front Yard Setback' 20 feet 19 feet Side yard Setback 5 feet q feet, six inches Rear yard Setback 20 feet 10 feet minimum Building Height 35 feet Com lies. 28 feel Parking 4 spaces, with 2 located in a aro e Complies Project Background The'prcject site is located.within a 90 -acre parcel of land known as Armstrong Ranch. Armstrong" Ranch was historically _used as. an agricultural parcel until the late 1990s, when the former owners, ceased use of the site. as a lima bean field and initiated the necessary'entitlements for development. In 2002, the. City'approved entitlements for a mixed-use development that included. a public high school, a 30;000 -square -foot YMCA facility and a 156 -unit, single-family residential development by Shea Homes. Of the 90. -acre parcel, approximately 15 acres was.set aside for the construction of a.2,700 -seat, 100,000 -square -foot Cathedral Parish, which was entitled in 2004. Prior to submitting plans into building plan check, the Diocese was able to purchase the, Crystal Cathedral in GardenGrove, thereby eliminating the; need for Cathedral on the subject site'. However, in anticipation of establishing the Cathedral at this location, the Diocese opened the Christ Our Savior Church on the northern section.of, the site. This church is currently -operational, with separate plans under review for a permanent church on its current site. Since the .entire 15 acre parcel is no longer needed, the Diocese is selling the southern, 6.7 acres to Shea Homes for their proposed project: Project Analysis Shea Homes is requesting approval of a zoning ordinance amendment and.a tentative tract map to allow the construction of The Artisan at South Coast, a 42 -unit, for-sale.single4amily residential development. The following sections of this report provide analyses for each of the proposed action items and the basis for staffs recommendation of approval for the project. 75B-5 ZOA No. 2017-02 & TTM No. 2.017-01 September 11, 2017 Page 4 Zoninq Ordinance Amendment The subject parcel is located within the, Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4y zoning district. This unique zoning designation allows a specific sef of .uses such as crop agriculture, single family dwellings, and accessory buildings. This designation also allows churches, community service centers and wireless facilities as conditionally permitted uses. This zoning designation was originally adopted in May 1977 and was revised in October 2002. The purpose and intent of an SD designation is to :address unique circumstances that are ,applicable to parcels,but are not, permitted by the Zoning Code. An example is the adoption of an SD to allow a mixed, use `development_ that is not, psrrnitted by the existing residential or commercial -zoning districts. For this specific proposal, the applicant is proposing to amend the SD -4 document to allow,a small -lot subdivision project on this site., Staff is recommending approval of the applicants request"for several reasons. First, larger parcels of vacant land are extremely limited in the.City, with larger parcels zoned for single-family residential development such as this parcel practically nonexistent. Modifying the zoning to encourage a small lot residential product will "allow the development of a. vacant, underutilized parcel with a well-designed, viable development. Second, the small lot produ*of maximizes the use of the, parcel and, results in a more efficient use of available land. Third, approval of the project will allow the construction of a resideritial,project that will provide a variety of housing products and choices to residents of the City. Finally, due to the reduced parcel size, the proposed project will provide a more affordable housing product in the area that may allow young people to shift from living in an apartment to a single-family residence. The small lot product will also appeal to empty nesters .that are looking to downsize into,a smaller home. The proposed project will be consistent and would support several goals and policies of the General Plan. First, the project would be consistent with the Housing Element, including Goal 2 which encourages diversity of .quality housing, affordability levels; and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types,: income levels and agegroups to foster an inclusive community. Second; the project would support Goal 4, to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. Further;, the project would be consistent with several Housing Element policies: Policy HE -2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing; and Policy HE -2:6 to provide an affordable component within eligible.ownership housing projects. 75B-6 ZOA No: 2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 September 11, 2017 Page 5 Tentative Tract Ma Tentative tract map requests are governed by Section 34-119 through 34-318 of the SAMC. Tentative tract map requests may be granted when it can be shown that the project is consistent with all elements of the General Plan, conforms to all zoning and subdivision codes, is physically suitable for the type and density of the project,, will not cause substantial environmental damage or avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, will not cause serious public health problems, and will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 6.7 -acre parcel of land into 43 lots, with 42 lots dedicated to single-family residences, and one lot for open space purposes. Based on a review.of the tentative map. by the Planning Division. and Public Works Agency, the project has been designed to be in compliance with the applicable developmentstandards found in Chapters 34 (Subdivisi(in) and 41 (Zoning) of the -Santa Ana Municipal Code and with the applicable SD -4 zoning document. The project will promote a .development suitable for the site' and will provide an additional opportunity to -purchase a residence in the City. The project will also contribute to the promotion of .jobs -housing balance in this area of the City. Additionally, the development, through the construction of the proposed public improvements and site amenities, will contribute to the enhancement of a portion.of the city that.has seen minimal investment in recent years. Based on the initial study prepared for the project; no environmental or fish and wildlife impacts will occur since the parcei.is vacant. Finally, the development of the site will not result in any serious public health problems nor are there any public easements recorded on the,subject site. Approval of the tract map will be consistent with the goals and policies identified in the. City's General Plan. Goal 1 of the Land Use Element encourages the City to prorimote a balance of land uses to address. basic. community needs. This development proposal will result in the construction of move -up single-family housing, which is not typically found in Santa Ana. The project is also consistent with Goal 3 to, preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Approval of this project will enhance the character of the immediate, area as well as the neighborhoods that surround the development; resulting in an increase in property values. The project is also consistent with Goal 6 to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. This project will result in the construction of 42 residential units, thereby providing,an opportunity for residents to, move into a housing development built to current building code standards. Policy No. 1.5 promotes the maintenance and fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the City, Policy No. 2.4 supports pedestrian access between commercial uses, and residential neighborhoods which are in close proximity, :and Policy No. 3.1 supports development which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. 75B-7 ZOA No, 2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 September 11, 2017 Page 6 Table 3: CEQA. Strategic Plan Alignment and Public Notification & Community Outreach «CEQA;<Straie is Plan.Ali nment;=ands�Public>Notif!cation,&_Corrimun t :Outreach; CEQA" CEQA-Type Subject to -a previouslyEIR Reason(s) As part of the City's permitting process, the,proposed project is required to undergo Exempt or Analysis an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an Initial Study (ER No. 2016-143), The proposed project has been reviewed through an Addendum to the.previously certified Environmental Impact Report 2000-01. CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000, et seq.) authorizes the use of an addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these changes do not rise to the level of requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162. The originally certified Environmental Impact Report Was analyzed in light -of the. revised site :plan and, iLwas determined that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the new plan. Several mitigation measures that required modification andlor further clarification have been added to the conditions of approval for this project. Additionally, a trip generation _comparison was performed to,analyze the potential changes in traffic circulation as.a result ih a change to traffic patterns over the past few years. The result of the traffic analysis concluded that the residential use at this site will result In 75 fewer trips in the morning peak hour, 42 fewer trips -.in the afternoon peak hour and 278 less trips on a daily basis. According to the revised study, the proposed project will not,exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established -by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, no additional review or mitigation measures related to traffic are needed. The determination that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the' severity of the Impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report mean that in accordance with CEQA Section 15164, the Addendum to the previously certified Armstrong Ranch project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Re ortin Pro ram is the appropriate document for the actions proposed. Strate ic Pla�'`Alignfnent; Goal(s) and Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal No. 3 Economic, Pollcy(s) Development, Objectives No. 2 (create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordnance -policies) and No. 5 (leverage private investment that results in tax base expansion and job creation citywide) of,the,Santa Ana Strategic Plan_ Moreover, approval of this item ,supports !Goal No. 5 Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability, Objectives, No. 3 (facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to 'preserve and improve the livability of Santa. Ana neighborhoods). 75B-8 2 N�b. 0 ., T No -01 OA 2 .17-02 & T� September fi,, 2017 P60p 7 Pdbllc�N61:111�61:1.dn --&,ComJm(fhItY0Ut`rb h Required Measures On-'SeOtember,20, 2016, the applicant held a community, meeting in accordance with the. provisions of -the City's Sunshine Ordinance at Segerstrorn High School. Several members of -the .cominunityattended With issues Such as pE! . rking, op6ni space, Ouallfickldw.6f the',developer, and safety discussed,, Planning Division' staff also attended the meeting: The,applicanti d not provided ax draft.notice, ice, , affidavit, copy of publication, and meeting notes to Planning Division staff in the days .following the meeting. A public noticeld...was posted on thdoro. JeC , t site on August'31,2017: Notification -by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project -site on Se iemberI, Al 7. Newspaper posting was`,puolished.in'the Oran a County - Re ort Or on _September f�017. Additional Measures Thp,projectsite not located Within the boundaries of a nelgh6drhood association but is adjacent to. the Republic-. Homes and Metro Classic Neighborhood' ghborhood I Atsoclations. Staff fibs notified' both associations of the' proj6c( by mail ain I minimum of 10 days'Or'ijpr to'the public h6adfigtci-enwre they were: notified of the I and to identify r meeting if there were any areas of concern. The project'sitd itself was posted With a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice was p6blished.in the o * range County Reporter and mailed,botildes were'sent to, ail properly owners, and occupants within .5bo feet of the proj6dt'site. At the time of this printing,no .t, wirbsporid6rice, either Written or electronic,, had been received from any el .. . I I I .- I y membersof the'public.. Conclusion Based on the analysis provided in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Oedin'anmArnendment No. 26117-02 and adopt a reso _ lution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 . as conditioned. Vince Fregos&AICP Principal Planner VF:jm. YPmporls'ZOA17.-02 & TM17-01*Shea Hpmuu.pu 75B-9 ZOA No. 2017-02 & TTM No. 2017-01 September11, 2017 Page 8 Exhibits 1. Ordinance with Specific Development No. 4 and Resolution 2. Vicinity and land Use Map 3. Site Photo, 4. Site Plan 5. Floor Plans 6. Elevations 7. Landscape Pian 8. Tentative Tract Map 9. Addendum to,EiR 75B-10 LS41117 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 4, PERTAINING TO THE ARMSTRONG RANCH.. DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SALES OFFICES; MODIFY THE PARKING STANDARDS AND INCORPORATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION (SD -4) (ZOA NO. '2017.02) FOR THE PROJECT AT 2001 W..MACARTHUR BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare'as follows: A:: Zoning, Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 has been filed with- the Lily of Santa Ana to :amend the Specific Development, Plan No: 4 (SD -4) to allow temporary sales offices, modify the parking standards and incorporate development standards fora small lot-subdiyision within SD -4 located at 2001 W. MacArthur Boulevard (see Exhibit A), B: The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held :a duly noticed public hearing on`September 11, 2017, on Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. - 2017.02 o.2017=02 by a'vote of x:x. C. The addition of temporary sales offices on the SD -4 parcel will allow the use of temporary structures such as trailers as sales offices, thereby facilitating the ,sale of single-family residences with the SD -4 project site. D. The modification of the. parking standards within the SD -4 development will align the parking "standards for single-family residences within this development with the parking standards for single-family residences throughout the city. E. The inclusion of small lot subdivision standards within the SD -4 district will encourage the development of more`.affordable single- family dwellings within the south cehtral section of :the city while remaining consistent with the general plan designation of Low Density Residential. F. This City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing'on October 3, 2017. Ordinance No. NS -XXX' EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 6' 75B-11 G. The. City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council. Action"dated October 3,'2017 accompanying this matter. H. For these reasons, and each of them, Zoning Ordinance'Amendment No. 2017-02 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity,'convenience, and general welfare. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum'to .certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. ,2000-01 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared .with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter; determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental "Quality Act (CEQA) and the State .CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Review No. 2016-143 meets all requirements of CEQA.. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Section 15164, the Ad"dendum_to the previously certified Armstrong Ranch project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the appropriate document for 'the actions proposed. Section 3. Specific Development No.. 4 (SD - 4) is Hereby amended as. set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. Section 4. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason. held to be invalid or unconstitutionai by the decision of any'eourt 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. ADOPTED this day of 2017. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Ordinance No. NS -XXX Page 2 of 6 75B-12 APPROVED A5 Tb FORM: Sonia R: Carvalho City Attorney Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmenibers, ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:. CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY [,:'MARIA D. HUIZAR, 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 417, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk:of the Council City of Santa Ana 75B-13 Ordinance No. NS -XXX Page 3 of 6 Exhibit A Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4) Armstrong Ranch SECTION 1 —Applicability of Ordinance The Specific Development No. 4 Zoning District (SD -4), as authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26, Section 41-593 et seq., of the Santa Ana Municipal'Code, is subject to the standards and regulations contained in this plan for the express purpose of establishing land use regulations and: standards: All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code shall apply unless expressly waived or superseded by this ordinance. Use district regulations established in Chapter 41; Article 111, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code for zoning districts other than the SD zoning district may be incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2 _ Purpose The Specific Development No. 4,Plan for the Armstrong Ranch site is hereby established for,the _express purpose of protecting thie'health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by.enccuraging the use of innovative planning concepts and principlesfor the planned residential development of a series of separate:but related land areas in the City of Santa Ana subject to Specific Development Ordinances 3, 4,-5, 6 and 7 promoting and enhancing the value of ,property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 — Uses Permitted The following uses are permitted in the SD -4 zoning district: a. crop agriculture, b. single family dwellings, 'c. accessory buildings and uses:determined to be incidental.and necessary to the primary use, subject to the approval of the. Planning Commission. d. One (1)temporary real estate office devoted to the sale of real estate in the r4 Municipal Code. SECTION 4— Uses Subiect to a Conditional Use Permit The following uses are conditionally permitted in SDA zoning district: a. Churches and accessory church buildings arid functions. b. Wireless communication facilities. 75B-14 SECTIONS — Minimum Parcel Area The minimum pirdel size_ fora single-family residential lot shall be 4,000 s uare feet. SECTION 6 — Minimum Street Frontage The minimum street frontage fora single family residential lot'shall be 27 feet. SECTION 7 — Maximum Floor Area Ratio iFARi The maximum FAR for a single-family residence shall be 0.50. SECTION 8 --Front Yard Setbacks .SECTION 9 — Side Yard Setbacks SECTION 10 — Rear Yard Setbacks SECTION 11 —Building Height.Limit The height limit of main buildings .and structures is 35 feet and accessory buildings and structures is' 20 feet. The height limit for accessory church structures is 150 feet. The Planning Commission shall have�the right to limit the number .of stories in any or all of the buildings in the SD #4 district, or the height of any other structure, when it finds, that existing or proposed developments on adjacent properties, or properties, across a street or alley, would he adversely affected unless such a limitation were imposed. SECTION 12—Yard Requirements All yard requirements shall be established by the approval of plans and drawings as provided for in Division.26`of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.. SECTION 13 - Parking.Reguirerhents Required parking -shall be provided as follows; 75B-15 Two. Parking s aces within fully enclosed garages 'and ene. two uncovered parking spaces for each dwelling within the development:. SECTION 14 - Dwelling Units Permitted No more than 7 dwelling units per one (1) acre of net developable; land shall be permitted. SECTION 15. Open Space Not, less than 50 percent (50%) of the total lot area shall be devoted to open space as per Division 24, Santa Ana Municipal Code (PRD development standards), excepting however that up to a ten percent (10%) reduction to, forty- five percent (45%) open space may be granted by the City if it is found that, based on excellence of design, the proposed oAen space and recreational amenities merit the reduction of thefifty percent (50%) open space requirements. SECTION 16 —Regulations Specifically Included Herein By Reference All requirements; limitations, restrictions and waivers encompassed in Chapter 41, Division 24, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (PRD use district, regulations) shall apply to SD #4 use district; excepting therefrom the requirement of an approved conditional use permit and any other requirements, limitations, restrictions and waivers which are I' conflict with other sections of this ordinance. SECTION 17 — Landscape Standards t. Project Landscaping: a. b. Irrigation Systems: Water regulations and City standards 2. All meters sh and vines or structure. 3. Maintenance: a. All plant rr 75B-16 LS 9.1 IAT RESOLUTION N0: 2017-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF :SANTA ANA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2017-0.1, AS CONDITIONED, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO 43 LOTS AT"2001 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISISON OF THE CITY" OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows; A. Applicant .is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of an existing parcel into forty-three (43) lots at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard. B. Santa Ana: Municipal Code Section .34:-127 requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map bythe Planning Commission. C. On September 11, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract Map 2017-01. D. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana determines that the, 'following findings, which must be established in order to approve this Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Santa, Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 34-127 and the State Subdivision Map Act, have been established for Tentative Tract Map 2017-01; 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are: consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other Elements of the General Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements will be consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all .other elements of the General Plan and any applicable. specific plans. The proposed subdivision of land to create 43 parcels is consistent with the land use designation and all other elements of the General Plan: Land Use Element Policy No. 1.4 promotes the maintenance and fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the City and Housing Element Policy HE -2.4 encourages projects that facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 1 of 6 75B-17 LS 9.11.17 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well ,as other applicable City ordinances: The proposed subdivision conforms to the requirements and intent- of ntentof the provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map Act. Further, the map is, in keeping with the Site Plan Review (Development Project ,No. 2016-24) and Cha pter..34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required for the project, which need to be approved by the City prior to City Council approval of the final map. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. There are no physical constraints on the site that would preclude development. The proposed site consists.of:approximately 6.72 - acres of land and is physically suitable.for the proposed small lot residential development, where lots will range in size from 4,019 square feet to 8,608 square -feet. Access to the site will'be from Jaguar Way, which takes access from MacArthur Boulevard, a major arterial. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project, will not cause substantial' environmental damage or: ubstantWly and avoidably'injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the Armstrong Ranch development in 2002 pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act. To address potential impacts from this new .proposal, an ,Addendum to: the EIR was, prepared that analyzed potential impacts 'generated from the 42 -unit development. The project site is located in an urbanized area, and there are no. known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed; subdivision will not have any detrimental effects upon the general public. The short-term and long-term impacts identified in the environmental impact report, and further analyzed in the Addendum to the EIR, noted that impacts can and have been Resolution No, 2017-xx Page 2 of 6 75B-18 LS $:11,17 mitigated to a level of less'than significant through the.adoption and Implementation of specific rnitigation measures. 6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the'prope' ty within the proposed project. The design or improvements of the, proposed project will not.confiict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project since there are no public access easements or any other easements located within this property. Section 2. In accordance" with the California Environmental Quality Act the recommended action is exempt for further review as It was subject to a previously prepared EIR per Section 15164. As part'of the City's permitting, process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental revieW.in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an Initial Study (ER No. 2016-143). The proposed project has further.beenreviewed through an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report2000-01. 'CEQA. guidelines (California Code of Regulations -15000, et seq,) authorize the use of an addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these;changes do not rise to the level of requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162. The originally certified Environmental Impact Report was analyzed In light of the revised site -plan and it was determined that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the new plan. Several mitigation -measures that required modification and/or further clarification have been added to the conditions of approval for this project. Additionally, a trip generation comparison was performed to analyze the potential changes in traffic circulation as a result in the change to traffic patterns over the past few years. The result of the traffic analysis concluded that the residential use at this site will result in 75 fewer trips in the morning peak hour; 42 fewer trips in the afternoon peak hour and 278 less trips on a daily basis. According to the updated study, the proposed project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the: County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, no additional review or mitigation measures related to traffic are needed. The determination that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report mean that in accordance with CEQA 15164; the Addendum to the previously certified Armstrong Ranch Project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the appropriate document for the actions • proposed. Section 3, The Applicant agrees.to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the .City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be -brought arising out of its approval of this Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 3 of 6 75B-19 LS 9-. 11.17 project; and any approvals associated with'the project; including, without li'mitat'ion, any environmental review `or approval, except to'the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa, Ana after conducting the public hearing herebyapproves Tentative Tract Map 2017-01, as conditioned as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for the property located at 2001 West" MacArthur Boulevard.. This decision is based upon .the evidence, submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes; but -is not limited to: the. Request for Planning Commission Action dated., September 11; 2017, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 11 m day of September, 2017., Mark McLoughlin Chairperson; Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney' By: Lisa 'Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Rosa Barela, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2017-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on September 11, 2017. Date: Recording Secretary City of. Santa Ana 75B-20 Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 4 of 6 Ls 9.11.17 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 (County Map No. 18055) is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable, sections of the Santa Ana Municipal .Code," the. California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed belowrip or to exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the tentative tract map. A. Planning division Comply'with all conditions: and requirements'from the Development Review Committee (DRC) for the development project (DP No. 2016=24). 2. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 3. All real estate signage"must be removed from the site within one (1) year from: : he date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as determined by the Planning Manager. .4. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the: subdivider must bein, accordance with the design, standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 6. Development within the area of the map is subject. to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and 'development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 8. Two.copies of the recorded final map and CC&Rs shall be submitted each to the Planning Division; Fire Authority; Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. Resolution No, 2017-xx. Page 5 of "6 75B-21 LS 9.11.17 8EPTEMBER11, 2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 9. A 'detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building; permits. In addition,to the landscaping palette, the 'plan shall include details on the hardscape design;. lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for, the common area parcel: At a minimum, the project shall incorporate the, amount and size of landscaping as shown on the preliminary landscape plans dated July 25, 2017. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and, approval of the Planning Division. 10. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant; materials installed at the time of -occupancy as required by the approved plans. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 6 of 6 75B-22 Page I of 1 ZOA 2017-2 AND TTM 2017-1, THE ARTISAN AT SOUTH COAST 2001 WEST_MACARTHUR BOULEVARD ,— , s j ��vy Y Yp 'wry{ f+ pp m S that i ib SIF r "tea •��.irF � a � � � _ i:..3�t+ � ^e�$� y+ e.H m s *^ ;r „ ci3sg ndary i SITE iNJ ? i3 ti . R1 ■fto raet EXHIBIT 2 - VICINITY ZONING AND AERIAL VIEW i Nn a ^ nuel Klan P`nu,m all •.nhl, r?CP/uv9 htip:h'maps. di gi to i mapcen tral. com./produc tion/Dasz5R`T/A;lt:l ease+hhri [itoo lkitic omroands/ pri ndht... 9/5/2017 ZOA 2017-02 AND TTM 2017=01 THE ARTISAN AT -SOUTH COAST BY SHEA HOMES 2001 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD EXHIBIT 3 75B-24 fi{sfisp, ��1 �> i11t �Elgt III- +�fi 1 1131 fiiY$ft��Yi1lIa91NO,IE .1a11irm Y t YIQgIS ety:lf ef. Ei3 i"tti e l .71 i x rt z H 4 - 01 } ; =� to � 1 _ �.eavzs�•ec QQ r it o 0 ��Ij qq 8Y" ilev aS� '.dl a3s sf9Gn i� n vvrr 1 EXHIBIT 4 a4 �i gills 75B-25 t� w F- e ee I s Aa �! G Mf E ------------ I 75B-26 �Ip E e a w m it • ^� f 3F ...,..... _ Io NIW'.00"6d 75B-27 i i 75B-28 J� 6.q 8 ttte>r hh i f{ f I_ . ;--- - - -- - - -- - - --------- i 75B-29 75B-30 Lie ^ \ q} / '19 ;�!*A.� � fg 4 0 4 � Oa _-�- `` I t z • IN Ip NIW .00'6L 75B-31 a.N I 75B-32 I 75B-33 � F W'a<. R'�—•!I +Plan s m m 77a 0 0 g 0 o� R 2 4 O inS� 0 fig of �UiTimi r" 75B-34 MR III �I .'p x U s 8 2 UI: w 75B-36 "UJ n3J s ■ 75B-37 I� 9 § ; § a K 75B-38 ed =IF 0 3 �V 75B-39 S�fill J VI; e UIQ 75B-40 Eff 75B-41 w F as 698 1 EXHIBIT'7 ' �i- 75B-42 75B-43 X O N 75B-44 c 1. 4�..Pq•q ,l�9 � ��E ibbi c b S3iilii TiM ibbi 9YYSKsa•.iai c ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMSTRONG RANCH SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 9 75B-47 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMSTRONG RANCH SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Subinitted to:. City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 -Santa Ana, CA 92701 Prepared by: LSA,Associales, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 (949)553-0666 Project No. SHO1604 September 2017 75B-48 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRoDU&I [ON...... ................ ...... --- ......... ....... ;� ...... ........................ .......... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION..... ............ ............. -- ......... 1.2 PURPOSE 6FADDENDU1 ItOTfflsETR.. ......... .. ..... I ....... 1-7 13 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES .......... - ...... -- ........... ............ -- ......... —.1-7 1.4 CONCLUSIONIS.. .... ...... — ..... ..... ..... ........ - .......... ........... ................. ........................ 1-8 2.0 EVALUATION . OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..,....:..................................:...............:.2-9 2.1 AESTIIETICS-..,......—o ... .............. ........................ 2-10 2.2 AGRICULTUREAND FOREST RESOURus,:.......,..—.— .........s......:......:.:.::..::.....2-14 f3 AIR QUALITY ......... : ....... ........... ............ ........ ... w-2-16 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, ... - ........... ............ — ........... ...... ........... ... ........... 2-21 2.5 CULT ORAL RESOURCES. ........................... .................... ........2-24 16 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......... ...... ........ ..................... .........2-29 2.1 bw✓EmbbSE -GAS EMISSIONS....... .......... ....................... ................................. 2-35 2.8 HAZARDS AND I IAZ'A R' ObS'MATERIALS -, ......... ...... ....... ........ ......:....2-39 2.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATT QUALITY ....... ...... ...... ....... ..::....2.43 2.10 LANP,USE/PLANNING ...................................... ....... ................... ............. ----2-48 2.11 M I INFRAL RES60k ES , .................................................................................. ml 2.12 NOISE ....................... !- ............ ...... ........ ........... I .................. 2-53 2.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................... ! ........................ m ................ ........2-57 2.14 PUBLIC SFRVICES .. ....... ....... .......... ................... ....................... 2-60 2.15 ............... 'RKAI3XTION ......... I ............ I v ............. . .......... ....... I ........... ... z ...... I ..... 2-64 2.16- TRANSPORTAtIONI'T kA'FrTC ......................................................................... ......... 2-66 2.17 UTILITIESISERVICE SYST'P.)VIS; ............ .............. ................ . - ...................-2-70 1 ' 2A MANDATORY A I TORY -4- ............. ............ 2 -76 3,.0 DETERMINATION .......... ............... . ................ ...... .............. : ..... I .................. ;--;; ..... 3 >-79 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vi6ni(v ......... ........ ......... ; .................... ...................... 1-2 Figure 2- Project Site ....... ...... ....... — ........................ ............... 14 Figure 3: Site Plan....—.e ...... q ............ .............. ......... ........ ........ . ........ ; .............. 1-5 Figure 4: Tentative Tract Map ........ ......... L ...... ....................... ...... ............... .... .......... I ...... 1-6 TABLES Tablc A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric 'I;ons Per Year) .........::..........................:...::...........:...2-36 APPENDICES A: CALEENIOD GREENlIbUSE,,GAS r-i'missION CALCULATIONS B: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON 75B-49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT' ADDENDUM ' AUMSTRONO RANCH RRVIffEO PROJECT BEPTEMRRt 1117 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Annstrong Ranch Revised Project(SheaHofires 42 -unit small lot subdivision, 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard, DP No. 2016-24, (MASTER I.D. No. 2016.1289541, ER No, N 1 &143)- 2. Lead Agency Hume and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 -Civic CcmcrPlaza, IVI-20 Santa Aha, CA 92701 3. Contact'Person and phone number: Vince C..Fregoso, AICP T: (714) 66772713 F: (714) 973-1461 4- Project Location: The 15=acre Project site,is located in the.City, of Santa Arta. As shown on Figure 1, 1?roject.Location, regional access to the Project aiteis,provided by California State Route 55 (SR -55) to the east ofthe'Project site acid Inteistate'5 (1-5).to:i1ie,sdurh.'I1iePrcject site. is bound by`Alton Avenue to the north, existing residentialdevelopment to the east (Armstrong Ranch), MacArthur Boulevard to the south, and Jaguar Wav to the test. The northern portion of the Project site is developed with a smallsanctuary (7,590 square feet [sfj) associated with the Christ Our Savior Catholic Church and itparking lot that serves the church. The southern portion o(the Project silo is vacant. S. Project sponsor's name and address: Gina Gordon Com ulunhy-Dcvclopmcni Manager Shca'Hoines 2 Ada; Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92615 T: (949) 5264540 F:(949) 526-5797 6. General Plan designation: The current General Plan land use designation is'LR-7 (Low Density Residential) which pennits development orup to 7 dwelling units per acre (dulaerc), PiIFIIOI bU8btiS1��IJnmbldJcnaum,JUu «09+U>+1?ro 75B-50 M 0 SOUTH HARBOR W Si 'J, W Glenwood P1 2a c: r ,tom.! "Aso IV, W Har,wd St co i0j S AA Project Location --:VWarnerAv6,' '--,-W Wa Ave M. 7,WAltowAve� ---- -- tit ,--W Warner dye N11 Wjar.Arthur,Blvcl toil'- W MacArthur Blvd m Square J Sunflower Ave - yl 1 W'Sunflowef'Ave South rn Scutt] nngdes ProjectIVidnity VILIME: ifoast SOUTH COAST METRO .Obza % \ `b -- zF".rl,' Pfoiect Location YB BRISTOL It. 17 J SORECA e LSA LEGEND $ F=-1 Project Location FIGURE i Armstrong hanch SGURM Ding apt 12014) Project Location and Vicinity h1 75B-51 0 SOUTH HARBOR 2a c: r ,tom.! "Aso IV, 13 co Project Location 7,WAltowAve� ---- -- N11 Wjar.Arthur,Blvcl toil'- W MacArthur Blvd m Square J Sunflower Ave - yl 1 W'Sunflowef'Ave South rn Scutt] nngdes ProjectIVidnity VILIME: ifoast SOUTH COAST METRO .Obza % \ `b -- zF".rl,' Pfoiect Location YB BRISTOL It. 17 J SORECA e LSA LEGEND $ F=-1 Project Location FIGURE i Armstrong hanch SGURM Ding apt 12014) Project Location and Vicinity h1 75B-51 ZNV14ONM"TAL IMPACT -REPORT ADDENDUM' SEPTEMBER9019 ARMSTRONU RANCH REVISED. PROJECT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA' 7. Zoning; I he property is zoned Specific Developnieutil (SD -9). In 2002, in coimection with approval of the Armstrong Rancli project, SD4 was amended by Ordinance No, NS 2516.to eliminate cluster and condominium housing,.and increase the density to 7 du/acre consistent with the General flan Low Density Residential development density: S. Description of the'Project: Shea Homes is proposing to construct gated 42 -unit single;fautily residential development on approximately 6:72 acres located on what is known as Armstrong Ranch, a 90 -acre site (Revised Project). T1te Project location and Project site are depicted on Figures I and 2, respectively. Iri 2002, the City of Santa Ana (City) prepared an Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the developriment.of a 99,000 -square -foot, 2,700 -seat Cathedral parish for Oran -e County on this section of the Armstrong Ranch (Approtied Project). The church facility was to be located on a 15 -acre portion of Armstrong Raachr The Cathedral will no longer be built because the Diocese of Orange purchased the former Crystal Cathedral site for use as the County Cathedral. A small sanctuary building and office are'located on the 15 -acre portion`of the site, currently totaling 7,590 square feet. The chureh'is: proposing a revised site plan thatw,ould reduce in size and scope its proposed facilities, Of the original to acresI the church would use approyiraately8 acres of the.site for the Christ Our Savior chtirch Facilities, and is proposing to sell the.reinaining 6.72 acres to Shea Ilonnes for development of 42 residences. The residential component of the Revised Project is depicted on'Figure 3. The church's scaled-back development plans contemplates it total of 43,433 square feel of new development, built in two phases, as compared do the previously proposed 90,000 -square -foot project. The existing sanctuary Building and of6cc'wpuld be demolished. The current General Plan land use designation is LR --7 (Low, Density Residential), which permits '.development df up to 7 duracre. "17neproperty'is zoned Specitie Developnteiit 4 (SD -4). In 20(72; in connection with approval of the Armstrong Ranch project, SD4 was amended by Ordinance No. NS -2516 to eliminate cluster and condominium housing,and increase the density 7 du•°acre consistent with the General I'lan Low.Density Residential development density. The Revised Project will require an -amendment to SD=4 to allow for development of a small lot subdi��ision.'rhe only other'discretionary approval identified by the City that would be required fir the Project is a tentative truct_map (Figure 4). 9. Surrounding Land Uses: Alton Avenue is located to the north with residential uses beyond, existing residential development.is located to the east and south beyond MacArthur Boulevard, and Segerstrom High School is located to the west beyond Jaguar Way. 10. Other public Agencies whose approval is required: State (Eater Resources Control ApplicvulDeveloper must submit Permit Registration Board Documents, including Notice of Intent, to' comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction .General Permit (OrdcrNo. 2009.01709-DwQ; as amended by Order Nos. 2010,0014-DWQ and1012-0006-DN'Q) 1•.+Sf IV 160E.AdJendi�m'Ai3deDdum.ducA 60El:Uifl'u 75B-52 1-3 {Altonodve + �.s74OW, ,•� t " Iip eAc hawk `+Ria 1{M1 •Y e rAUM t Y rMON I 7,y. $ 1 'Red Fox Rd' JIVF er y1 Sp P'pS "t t; 3 FMeadowbroah�P ,.< ��V-7 mi v ,y ,moi 4 ,�• {+ fie+ { • .6 1. 1 x Y�'a 1 d S Ili ryixY • �` °' a 9 " Ueereheltlfttl' .MacA6ur.Blvd _ �- CA a „ A,ms;rringRancn MUMF,u. CryBeroi Sieh Plan ,TIMI :mrysnr_nan NrWiftniq 75B-54 L5Arwune. II a em. amsriurig Nnnih sous:rwrm�.Re�•eans. Tentative TrJU Map b(S.�rK.YA:WmAn� n.a\unail, lv:fl:gm 75B-55 ENVIRONMENTAL IMFACTREPORT ADDENDUM ARM9TR.V6 R.NCn RRVIYEO PROJECT 9EPTFYHSi 2017, 3AN?A ANAi CALIFORNIA 1.2 PURPOSE. OF ADDENDUM TO TIIE EIR. This Initial Study/Addendum protides the basis for augmenting the previously certified Final Enviromnental mpact Repoit (Certified. EIR) (State. Clearinghouse N6.'2001031004),forthe Armstrong Ranch Project and serves as,the Califoiliia Environmentat Quality Act,(CEQA) documentation forthe following: • Amendment to S134 to allow for development of a small lot subdivision consisting of 42 single- family residential units on 6.72 acres previous evaluated as pail ofa church facility, • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map for 42 residential units on 6:72 acres This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA ,(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA'Guidelines. The term Revised Project" refers to the proposed rnodificationa to'the Armstrong Ranch Project while" A proved Project" refers to the project is described in the 2002 EIR. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES Pursuant to CCQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the local CEQA guidelines, this Initial Study/Addendum focuses on the proposed constriction of single-family residential units on 6.72 acres previously evaluated as part of a church facility; and whether anychanae in circumstances or new information exists that would substanfiall'y change the conclusions of the Certified EIR. Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified ona negative declaration adopted for a pruject, no subsequent FIR shall be prepared, for the project unless the lout agency determines; on the basis of substantial evidence; that one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity ofprcviously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is underiakcti that will requiramajor revisions ofthcprevious FIR due to the,involvefnettt of new significant environin6mal effects or it substantial increase in the severityorpreviously identified sigirificant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was nok known and could not have been known wish the exercise ofreasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, suggests any of the following: a) The project would have onc'or more significant effects not'discussed in the previous FIR or ncgative.declaration. b) Significant crfccts previously examined would be subslantially.rtaot'esevere than identiGe(1 m the previous EIR. .81101 604'•llddcod=',-I ddendlim.dacx 09AWI L. 75B-56 1-7 'EVV]RCVNEVTAL IY?ACT YF.1'.[10.T AAAeNA UM ARMS TR V<� RA41111 RM18t, VnojeCT SEPTENAEB ]412 - SANTAAKA. CALLL!DMMA' c) Mitigation measures or alternatives, previously found not to he feasible would in fact be Feasible, and would substa.Miatly reduce one or more; significant uffects of lhc'project, but the project proponent declines to adop"t,the mitigatiuii nteasures or alternatives, d) Nlitigatioti measures or alternatives that are considerably dirferetil from those analyzed in the previous BIR would substantially reduce one or more signi rleanl erfecls oil the crivironmcat; but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation'mcasums or alwmativcs. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "i f soine, changes or additions are necessary,.bui none of the conditions descHbcdin Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subscqumt FIR have occurred."This Triiiial Study/Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the proposed Project'and.anychanges to the existing conditions that have occurred since the EIR-was certified by the City of Santa Ana. It also reviews any now information of substanfial importance that was not known and could not have been, known with exercise of reasonable diligence.arthe time that the HiR,was certified. It furtlierexamines whether, as a result or any changes or any new iriConm nation; a subsequent or supplemental HIR maybe required. This examination includes ail analysis of the.provisions of Section 21,166 ofCCQA and Section 15162 or the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed Project: Thus Initial'. StudylAddemluin'relies on the attached Haviroriniental Analysis, whlgh addresses environmental checklist is'sui s on a sectioncby-section basis. Tltc Fnvironmental Checklist Fonn has been prepared pursuant to Section 15168(c)(4),of CEQA, which states that"whom the subsequent activities involve site specific operations,. the agency .usc a written. checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whellter the environmental effects or the operation' were covered in the prograin FIR,' Using this approach,,the.City of Santa Ana, as Lead Agency,,detcmiincd that an'Addendum to the previously approved certified FTR is the appropriate: document to provide environmental clearance for the proposed Revised Project, 1.4 CONCLUSIONS ThisAddeirdukn addresses the environmental effects associalcd only with the development of the scaled-back church facility and additional 42 residences that has been proposed since certification of the EIR. No new uses or significant changes arc proposed as part of the proposed Project, beyond those previously studied and disclosed, that would create new adverse impacts related to any of the environmental topics discussed below or a substantial increase in the suvcrity of previously identified significant effects. The conclusions of the analysis in this Addendum are not subslantially'differenl from those identified in the Certified -FIR. In addition, no new feasible alternatives or miligation measures that would reduce impacts have been found to be fcasiblc. Pats}loft+}I AddrldumWd&&4=.dmx 4.A)5IM, 75B-57 1-3 6NWA ONMENTAL. tMP AUT WO PO RT.. An OVID4M saereunnx_oa v. :AMN3T%0NO 9AN011 REVI58O PROJENT SANYA ANA. 4'ALIPO£NIA 2.0 CVA'LUAT[AN OF ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACTS This following environmental analysis evandates the Revised Project as compared to the Approved Projeci analyzed in the Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Checklist takes into considle ati n lhe,preparWon of the previous eiiviromnental document and the changes to the project that have occurred Subsequent to;certificatiou of the EIR, pursuant toSection 15164 of th'e Califomla Envirotnnenial Quality Act (Slate CEQA'Guideline) fhe compat atrve ,analy%ix for.each of the environineirtal.issues listed in'the Checklist provides City decision -makers with a factual basis for determining whether changes in; the Project; changes in circumstances, or new information since the certification of the E1R require additional environmental review or preparation ofa,subsequent or supplemental BIR: The basis tor cacti finding is explained in the analysis in. this section, i':'SI I916'9.UUmJmn Addendum.doca b09:05117, 75B-58 2-9 ENV[ SO NMENTAE'IYPACT REPORT ADDENDUM, 'AYYSTRONG RANCH REVISED PROJECT SEPTEMBER 901; SANTA ANA. OALIPORN]A 2.1 AESTRETICS Nett Rusul, l WW Slgnlflcaat %lore S"tre 'CbnDge fraw O'breld lilt project: Ia.nncl Imnacr Room Annlph a) Have a_substantinl advaroc effimt on ascetic vista? (b) Damage scenic minurces, including' but not limited to, trees, lock uutcruppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic ❑ ❑ highway? (c). Substantially degrade the existing visual characteror quality or El 13the IZ site and its surroundings? (d) Create nov source of substantial tight of glare whichwonld ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or ulghtthne views in the area'? Analysis of Project Changes: a) The Project site is surrounded on all sides.by urban development: Alton Avenue is located to the north with residential uses beyond, existing residential development is located to the east and south beyond MacArthur Boulevard and Segerstront High School is located to the west beyond Jaguar Way. No,State.or Comity designated scenic vistas are adjacentto or within direct view of the Project site. Howcwr, the section of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the site is designated as a Primary Sircet Corridor by the'Scenic Corridors Etement of the General Plan. The goals, objectives and policies or the Scenic. Corridors lacmerit arq'applieablc to )hc. Project because it is located adjacent to a Cityof Sanla Ana (City) (icsi(rnatWd.Primary,Strect Corridor. Consistent -.with the applicable goals, objectives and policies or the Scenic Con idilrs Element, the Revised Project would improve the public image of this section of MacArthur Boulevard along a linear transportation corridor by constructing a new, residential development with enhanced landscaping aiid public stmetscape improvements, architecture and design that meets City requireinetits and 'piovide development ata scale aiid design that are consistent -with the frai6tion of a scenic. corridor, Tlie Revised Project would meet the intent of the Scenic Corridors Element by improving the aesthetics of the site along a City designated scenic corridor a»d by ensuring the prgicct is developed ata scale and'designed'with aesthetic features that are consistent with Elie Function of scenic corridors as part of the Framework Plan. In addition, the proposed residential project is compatible with other residential development.ill the area and not be an obtrusive land use in a,desig ned scenic corridor: 'llte Certified.E1R concluded that the Approved Project would result in it less than sigi ificant impact to scenic resources from conversion of the agricultural field to residential and institutional uses. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in,a substantial ;adverse effect on a scehic vista and new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR would not. occur; therefore; no new mitigation measures are required. b) The California Department of'rrausportation's (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway Program, contained in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260-261 Stale Highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible: Interstate 405 (1.405), located approximately 4,3.15 feet south of the Project site, and State Route 55 (SK -55), located approximately 1.85 mile east of the Project site, are;not identified as an eligible orState- P. SHOIUH'•ACdeniun'-AddcnduiiY.dncx AWA. -,i 75B-59 2-10 ENVIRON%ENT" IMPACT XZYOHT AGGENOUM- SEPTAYEER SPIT -ARMSTRONG RANGI6 REVISED YROIEG[ SANTA. ANA,' OALITGANIA. designiated Scenic HighWay.' There,are no State=designated scenic highways.and no`sc'emc resources sudi,as Gees,"rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State scopic hrghwav either adjacent or witliin the vicinity of the site and visible from the'site that would be removed or altered by, the Project. The Certified Elk concluded that the Approved Project would result.in a less than siyniieicanl impact to:scenicresources from conversionofthe agricultural field to residential and institutional Uses. Because_ there. are. no scenic resources in the vicinity ,of the Project site, lhe`ROvlSed Project would not damage resources within a State -designated scenic highway and new signnfican( impacts beyondl lhose identified in the Certified EIR would not occur. No new mitii anon measures are.required.. c) 'The Project site is surroun north with residential uses south beyond MacAtihur l all sides by urban development. Alton Avenue is located to the J, existing residential development is located tothe Last and nrd; and Segenstrom High School is located to the west beyond Included that with implementation of Mitigation lvtcaqUr6 ViS- 'acsign and smaller Church campus. Landscaping included is. part of the;Re� ornamental trees and shrubbery.in setbacks along MacArthur Bol Avenue; The Revised Project also includes the development of a, entrance to the residential community,' While the Revised Project the _s.butheni portion of Project site from undeveloped land to de} reduced duiiclr facility proposed aspart of.the Revised Pri surrounding 'ile relopnient..Consequendy, the Revised L'rajl surrounding, land use character. In addition, the Revised Pr and mass of the surrounding development. Furthermore, th an improvement 10; the existing landscaping on the Project Revised Project would not degradc'the character or quality Revised Projeclavntribute to an oven ll dcgradalion'of llic surrounding arida and new sibmi bean f impacts beyond thos( not occur. Thc,Revised Project would comply with Miligat 131R.and noadditional mitigation measures are required. area' ,The Revised units and a reduced or iect:would include Jaguar Way, and Alton reationnrei near the ;hange the character of esidential uses, sin'gle- iciniyof;the Project ign and chamcterof'rhe consistent with the bndamentallwalter the A would be similar to.the height mdscapingwould bc similar to, or e'andthesurroundingarea. The the Proiccl site, nor would the ual character or quality of the cmi Ged in. the Certi fieri Ii1R _would Measure VIS -1 from the Certified d) The southern portion of the Project silo is:undeveloped in the existing condition and them are no existing sourcits'ofnighuimc lighting on'that portion of the Project site.'Thc CcrtiftcdF.IR coneluded.that.although the residential component of the .Approved Project woulifintroduce new sources of nighttime lighting and glare, the nighttime charaotcr of the arca (whichis surroundcd by urban development) would no4 change suhsrantiaily from the existing condition, Due to aw size and wile of the church deyclypment, the Certified EiR concluded That lighleting and glare L califoinia scenic lhghway MapphtgSystem; Ornnge County. http:thtiww.dot.ca ggv,bgr-Landi rc-h/1G_ Iiyabduvlse.enic_highways/index.htni (accessed, September 3,2017) P:%SIIU]603� ldd=dum•AJdrndum.d;,cs •eN,Diil h. 75B-60 2-11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ADDENDUM 'ARU3TROND RANCH REVURn PROJRCT 9EPTEMDER 21IT - RANTA,AHA. CALIFORNIA. from the church.could fie characterized as a aark contract: to adjacent develop ri6it.'Mitigatioa Measure V15-2 from the Certified Ell required preparatioh.of a lighting plan to;niinimize light spillover -onto adjacent parcels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS4, the Certified FIR concluded the lighting and glare impacts of the Approved project would be reduced to less than significant: The Revised Project would introduce nighttime lighting to the Project site, however; the lighting for the residential uses would not be expected to be out of character with the lighting provided for existing adjacent uses. Similarly, lighting for the Church campus, which would b,e seduced in size. compared to the Church facility proposed as part of the Approved Project, would be similar to lighting tha£alreaayexi'sts around'diesahctuary and would be consistent with the character of surrounding.uses, including Segetstrour High School. Wgifle new sources of light would be, introduced, the nighttime character of the area would not greatly change from the existing condition. Nevcril eless; the Revised Project would be expected to comply with'Mitigatioli Measure VlS-2, which requires preparation of a lighting plan that specifies thatexterior lighting at the perimeter of the. site be directed downward onto the Project site; and that feat res (e.g., hoods, or liaiapct walls) be included where.nppropriate to minimize light spillover Onto adjacent parcels. Mitigation Measure VIS -2 would address night lighting impacts associated with the Revised Project and impacts would beseduced to a less than sitiiificant leveI 'therefore, new or more severe sign lieani,impacis beyond those identified in theC.criffled Elk would not occur: Tlie Revised Project would comply with Mitigation Measure VIS -2 from the Certified EIR and no additional mitigation measures are required, Mitigation Measures: Based on the analysis and information above, Mitigation Measures VIS -1 and VIS -2 included in the Certified IRR for the Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. VIS -I "11ie design and character of project architecture of the church component shall be compatible with vicinity development. Architectural plans shall be reviewed during site plan review, VIS72' Residential project design shall include a lighting plan to specify'that,exterier lightingt the perimeter of the site shall bedirected downward onto the;project site and where'appropriate,,incl include features .(e.g., hoods -or parapet walls) to minimize fight spill-over onto adjacent parcels. Findings Related to Aesthetics: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified Elft Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that Project modifications requires major change to the Certified EIR. The Project changes will not result in new significant enviromnental impacts related to Aesthetics, and Ihere in so substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the Certified f:1R: P:%1101h01'Addcodum%A&kcndum.docx AW051t7a 75B-61 2-12 ,DNYIiOHMRHTAL IUVADT REFOAT,ADDRNDOM ARMST209a RANOH.REVISEn PROJFCT- -8Y9TRLLERR 2119 - - SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA Nd Substantial Change in CirCL1MStaRCcRequiring ilta,lor Certifled EIR Revisions: Therc'isno information in the record or -otherwise available that -indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Aesthetics that would require major changes to the Cerlified17111. No,New Information Showing GreaterSignificant Effects than the Certified EIR: This Addendum has analysed all.available relevant infonnatiob to dctennine whether there is new information that was not available at the time thc-EIR was adopted, which would indicate that a new significant effect not reported in that document mi htbecuir, Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that thcresvould he a news ignificant impact related to aesthetics requiring major revisions to the Certified 1731R, No New Information' Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR. There are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining td Austhetics identified in and considered by time Certified EIR. t';�SklOIUUi1AJdeneum'.Wdeniilirn:Auc2 �09;05/17�� 75B-62 2-13, a NVIBONNENTAL INPAO'r: ktI-0K V ANaaNnUN , SRFTENRa R°2017 ARMSTRONG YANOtr kaVIM PROPOT SANTA ANM OALIYORNtA_ 2.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ncht�7e os�su�ilw - tiiRviRwl 'Eev'erc CasNgefeom Would the pmjeerr 6npvcM Inipael Pr¢vkuYMaljTa S1ateividc Importance.(Fanaland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Jliipping:and Moohoring program Ili ilie California ❑ ❑ Resource.: Agency, Department of consmution, maintains detailed rna m of thescandbthercategories:oftnnniand). (b) Conflict with existing zoning foragricultutalasenraWilliamson ❑ ❑ ,® Act contract? (c) Involve other changes in the existing environmeiu which, due to their loeatioe:otifilure, cow ldtndMduallgorcumulatively result ❑ ❑ -® in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Analysis of Project.Changes: a) At the firne of eciii(icalion of the LIR, the Project site for the Approved Prglect was an agnculturai,fieId cotnpused or pt ,ne'Paitnland. Because the Approved Project wnulti convert prime farmislnd to a residential and chiircli developnaertt, the C crtified EIR coact i led that impact% to farmland would he significant and unaboiidable. The Project site is currently undeveloped, is not used for a0culturalproduction; and isnot designated Priine Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Familarid'of Statewide'Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.l The Revised Project would not convert Prime'Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of statewide lniportance, or"any"other type offarmland to a tion=ap icultural use. Futthrir,po agricultural rise is adjacenEAo Elie Project sitg and the vicinity is developed with urbanuses. "herefore, no iinpaetS.to Primo Futmlmil, Unique'Fannlat d, or Farinland of Statewide hnportance,would occur as a rmultof Project implementation and no mitigation is . required:herefore, the Revise([ Project would not result i L n new significalit'inupacts beyond those identified in the Certified' EIR.'No new mitigation measures are required. b} As stated abq-�,e'at the time of ccrtificatio_n of theEIR; the Project site was an agricultural field composed ofptimc farmland. Accor¢fng to the.Calif'ornia Depatinient.of Gonserbation's.state of California Williamson Act Contraei hand map for OrangeCounty:, the Project site is not currently protected by, or elie'bie for `G'illiamson Act contract. N,o impacts to'agricuftural use a Williamson Act contract would occur as a result of inipleinentaiien of the Revised Projeci. '17lerefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those. identified in (4c Certified FiR. No new mitigation measures are required. o) At the time of certification of the MR, the Project site for the Approved Prq)ect wm an agricultural field eoiitposed of prime farmland, Because theeApproved Project 1v661d convert California Department of CanscrVatinn. httpsalmap3.conscrvat7077.ca.govJiilrp/cittimzseiieSJ (nccc sed September 3, 2917)• r:''SH016a4'•AilJeoauao'Nt1Jen8mn.doc:. MA:'OS/17n 75B-63 2-14 nv V1Ro NYNNYAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMSTRONG RANCiI RYV14Rp PIIGJEOT 9RPTE8RER 2017 ,SANTA ANA, OALIPORNIA pririe fivinhind to,a residential and church development, the Certified E•,IR concluded that impacts to farmland would be significant and unayoidable. 'fhe Project site is notcurrently used for agricultural production, The Revised Project would.not convert farmland to a non-agricuh'uril oscrLikewise, the Revised Project would not contribute to emrironinental changes that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural. use. Therefore, no impacts to farmlands would occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new silmificant impacts beyond those identified in the CertiGul EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation ;Measures: No mitigation is required, Findings Related to:Agricultural Resources: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information; there is no evidence'that Project modifications require a major change to the' Certified EIR. The Project changes will not result in new significant environmental impacts related to Agricultural Resourcus, and lhcre is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in Certified EIR. No Substanthd Change In Circumstances Requiring Major Certified F,iR Revisions.'fhere is no information in the'record or otherwise available that indicates tharlbcre are substantial changes in circutnst:mevs per.[aining.to AgriculturelRmurces that would require major changes to the Ccrti�ied EIR, No New information Showing Greater'Significant Effects than the Certified EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the EIR was adopted, which would indicate thata new significant effect not reported in that document might occur. Rased an the information and analyses above, there is:no,substantialnew information indicating that there would be a new significant impact - related to Agricultural Resources requiring major revisions to the Certified EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR. There are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigationrncasures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Agricultural Resources identified in and considered by the Certified EIR. P:15H[)16U31.IJJenJliriAAddtndunl::ecx n0'bVS.+I L. 75B-64 ANN110NMENTAL tHMOT Y¢PO¢t,:AOpYNDUN 9EPTFM9zx reit A¢iaaiYDNO YANCHAYEYIanU PYOJP.OT � 'aeNTA.ANA,.. AALIPOANIA. 23 :AIR QUALITY- xCW More seveg_ nn SuLitaudat Cbaogernm' Would elle fCoJeCl:' .slenianmt 1.put rmpocr Prevla¢aAnalpk '(a) Ctiotllet .with or6 struclimplementationoftheapplicable Air 0 t)uah Attainrirenl Plan or Con as O dlanae melt Plan^ (b) Violate, anyslanonary source aur quality standard or contribute. El -to ancxistinor roosedair quality violation?� (c) Result in-acumulatively eonsiderublenet increase ofanycriteiin .pollutant far which Ole projex.t region is lion attainment under an ❑ Ll 9 applicable federator statc?mblent air quulut) standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qutintitalive thresholds for Mone precursors)? Ezpwcscasitir'e receptors W 3ubs[antiai,pplluhtnt 0 -[J concentrations? (e)' .Create objemtionuble odors affectitigj l substantial nutiiber,of El Analysis of Project; Changes:. a) The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basiii.(Basin) which is under the . , MananemeatDistriol (SGAQiv@).'SC'AQpiIJ) and.lhc JUN LLLG 1 lL �U A,.. Plan (AQMP): The.main purpose.of an,AQ1viP is.to describe air, pollution control strategics io be taken -by -a city; county, orrcgiolrclassifieci'as a nonattniinmentarea in order to bring the area into compliance with federal and Stnte air quality standards. A •nonattainmenl area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as defined hi [he federal,Clean Atr Act The Basin i4 (h'nonattainment for.the federal and State standards for ozone (Qa) and pi mgulate matter" less than 2.6 micrtins lit diameter (PMS) and in nonattainment for Lhe,Statestandard e6r particuiafemattzr:less Than 10 microns in.dianieter (PMio)-ThnBasin is in attaintnent(maintepaticeLunclassi lscd status for all other federal and State cntgria`pollutant standard's.. Consistency with the 2016 AQMP Tor. the Basin (2016 AQ�1P).mgans that a' Projcet would lie consistent. With Ih"c goals, objeetives, and assumptions in the respective plagtti achieve the federal ar d State air quality standards: Per:lhe SCAQMD CEQA Air Qualrly Handbook (April 1993)i there are hvo"main'i - icators b a project's consistency with the applicable AQh�mp: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency orseverity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to now violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions snecifred in tl e 2012 AQ,\1P; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2016 AQ1A1i's assumptions for 2030 or yearly incrementsbased on the year of project build out and phasing. For the Revised Project to be consistent with the AQMP adopted by the SCAQMI), the project,,irould need to be eons stent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identifrcd in the 2016 AQMP The Revised Project would add 42 single, family residential units which weren't previously envisioned for.'the project s«e; however the overall population grnwth associated 11 with'the project would be consistent with, the overall growth pmjectiolis for the region contitined in the AQMP_ Therefore, similar to the t\pproved Project, the, Revised Project would also not be inconsistent, with the AQ4V1P allainnteut forecasts The 1•:'si10114}M1lAddnictum4Cdd.•ndum.ducx i9:'t1?11'x 75B-65 2-16: ENViROVbXNTM.. IMPADT.;ASPOET ADDENDUM -SEPTZMUEE-]411 AUMSTRON0 HANON REVISEDPROJECT SANTA ANA. 'CALIFORNIA Cer ified EIR,alse'concluded thakthc',Approved Project would not conflict with an AQ1vIP. 'Therefore, the Revised Project ivoWd not result in new signiticant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new,mitigation measures ore required li) Similar to the Approved Project, air quality iutpacts could,occucdur]hg construction oftlie Rc*cd Project froin'soil disturbance and equipment exltaustl Major sources of emissions during 'grading and site preparation include (I) exhaust emissions from. construction vehiclesi '(2) equippienFand fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and' equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, iind '(3) soil disturbances from grading and backfilling. Construction emissions from the Revised Project the potential to excccd criteria pollutantthreshokkestablished by SCAQMD. However, the [Revised Project would comply, w' ith MitigationMeasures AQ -1 and AQ -2 from the Cerlieted EIR, which require adherence to standard SCAQMD standard measures to reduceairquality impacts, as well as SCAQfvID Rules.402'and 403 to reduce fugitive dust during construction. Mitigati&i Measures 41.and AQ4 would reduce short-tetin air quality impacts associated with.the Revised Project,;Due to increased emission regulations on construction equipment, emissions associated with construction'orthe Revised Project are expected to -be lower than those identified for the Approved` Project. T1te,Cerlifled EIR identified construction nitrogen oxide (NW) emissions :is stgnificatit".ind unavoidable. Implementation yr the Project.would use a construction fleahthat.would'piadney I o�tile NOx etnissiolts than thiisa identified in the, Certified EIR. Therefore; the Approved Project is not expyoled to result in new or worsening air 11uality impacts. No.new, mitigatimi measure$ are.required. Similar to the.Approved Project, long-term ainemission impacts <are associated with ;mychange. in permanent use of the P.rojecr site,liy on=site siationar5' and oft=site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions, Stationary -source emissions incln(le lnissions associated with electncity consurn tion olid natural gas usage., Mobile -source emissions usually result from vehicle trips associated,with o project. t is anticipated thatstanon try sources of the Revised Project would be similar to the, Approved Project. As discussed in.Section 2:15,. 'TransportationoTraffic, the Revised Project'woutilgencrate:fewer traffic trips compared to the land uses proposed for the Approved Project; therefore, air quality impacts of the Revised'Project rf6ii mobile sources would be loss, than the Approved Project: The Certified EIR concluded that operational t,it,quahtI; emissions would not exceed SbAQmlI thresholds and wouldbe:lessthan silniiflcanr. Therefore, :it is anhcipalcd dta[ operllional air quality impacts of the Revised Project would also not exceed SCAQMD diresholds and would be'less than. significant. In summary, short and long-term airquolily impacts would be'sitnilar or less than those identified in the Certified E1R. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new'significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FIR. No new mitigation measures aie'required.. c) The'Basin is in notiattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (fir) and particulate matter less th;in'2.5 micrdns in size (PMi,5). In addition, the Basin is in non mainment for the, State particulate hiatter less than 10 mnsize microns i(P[vho) standard, and atelintnent/maintenanee for the federal PMI.,; carbonmonoxide (LO), and nitrogen dioxide'(N0,) standards. :As discussed in Reponse 2.3.b, above; construcliori activities have the potential to exceed the SCAQMQ'scriteria pollutant emission tlimsholdc, However, the projected to ilssions of criteria pollutants resulting during construction of the Revised Project would similar to or less than those Pii5lIU16iV?AdAm3om�tddendirtn:dnex 75B-66 BN VIAGNYENTAL'[Y PACTAiP OAT ADD6NDVELi identified in the.Certified EIR; with implemcttlation of- from f from'the'Certified Ek The prgjected,operational crinis(. Revised Project are expected to be below the emissions Cumulative emissions.are part o f.lhe emission iuycnlor area. Therefore, as identified in the Certified FIR, emisq consideiable. Because the Re visc'd Projee(cmisaions'.ri wiih implementation of Mitigation iy wdres:AQ,i and cause a curimlatively considerable net increase of eriter nonattaiimient status in the Basin: TheCortifted Flkah Approved Project.would not be cumulatively consideral no result in new significant impacts beyond those idem mitigation measures are required. d) As'described in Response 2i3:b, the _A¢MIT YONC AANC II 9CV[UD PROJECT" IANTA ANA, CALIPOANtA 'Measures A04, and AO iteria pollutants as a. result of the :established for the region. in the AQMP for the Project the J that:air gaality jmpacts of the ore, the Revised Project would Certified EIR; No new e receptors to'airborno particulates as well as a small 41 u¢ually.diesel-fueled.vehides and equipment). H for would-ciimpiy with Mitigation ,Measures iAQ4 and •d SCA.QMD standard measures to reduce air'quality in 2 and 403 to reduce fugitive dust during construction. I ald reducehnpacts related to exposure of sensitive rcec ions during'construction to a. less than significant level. fugitive dust w•iiliimplementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ 2: Tlie Revised Project would not result in new -.significant imp tcts.beyond those identi Certified E1R. e) Heavy-duty equipment operating in the Projccrarea during construction would'( primarily from the equipment exhaust. However, odors related to construction a tease to occur afte ;construction is completed. In additien, titese. odors'�vould be Prolwt stte i ii1 wouhi'dispwse quickly. During'operation,.the proposed uses art to emit adv:gbja ienable,odors. Ttierefore, the Revised Project would not ezpa numbers of piupte to,objectionable odors. The Certified EIR also concluded tha Approved Project related to odnrsmwouldbe less than signifieant.'llierefore, the would not result in new significant impacts heyond those identified in the Certil additional nurigation measures are required. llitigatidn lvteas}tres: ^r, the: as . to to Prgject No Based un the analysis and information,1166ve, [Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 ii eluduil in the` Certified F,IR for the Approved Project would be applicable fothe'Iteiised Project, AQ -1 The Proim developer(s)-sliall develop, and implement a -construction management. platl, as approved by the City of Santa Ana, which includes the folloHang'mensures r otrimgtidetl by the,SCAQNID, or equivalently effective nieasures'approved,by the City of Santa_ PSSnU14a4'•Addmtluni:laaendum:acci G49Rii+Y i9 i-1 s 75B-67 'RKVIRDNMRNTAL IMPACT RRPCRT'.ADDRVHUM ARMSTRONG RANCH RZVISDD PROFRUT S.SYPSRM0aR IIIA SANTAANA. CALIFORNIA' P Configure censtruc060arking to mini,iniZe.traffic interference Provide tcmporary traffic coiitrmls duriniall.phases of cotistructicm activities to maintain traffic flow (c.g., hag.persnti) • Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to. off-peak hours to the degree practicable • Re-route construction trucks awav from coogestedstreets • Cogsolidate'truck'delivcries when possible Provide_dedicaited turn times formovemeptofconstructiou trucks'and,equipntent on and bfi'siai. • Maintain equipment and chute cngincs in good condition and n`proper tune as per;manuf,ieturers"speciricaiiuns and per3CAQMD riles, to rninimize exhaust emissions • Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile ,equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel ko1he extent available and at competitive: prices, Use propane- or.butane pogered on-site mobile'egpipm6nt instead of gasoline to the bxientavaila -c and at conipetttive prices' AQ -2 Tfic,Pi-ijccl developer(s)'shall:mplementall utiles and regulations by- the Goveutinb, Board of the SCAQMI];Shat are,applicoble to the development of the Project (such ay - Rule 402-Nuisanee'and Rule 4'03—Fugitive LUust) and-thit are in effect at lhC time of development. Finding"sRclotW to Air Quality' No New Significant Effects Requiring Niajur'Cerlifted EIR-Revisions; Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no cVidencd that Project vibdikations regmre a major change to the (ertified.E1R.'`fhe' Project changes will -not result new sight figanl crtviromnenta► impacts related to Air Quality, and there ismo substantial increase,in the severity or impacts; described in the Certified EIR. .No Substantial Change. in Circumstances Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions, There is no infornation in the record or otherwise'available that indicates that there are substantial changes in cireumstances'perminmto Air Qualify ilial' " uld'require major changes to the Certified EIR. Nv.New lnformation Showing Greuter'Slgniffcant Effects than the Certified EIR: This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available atahc time the Flt was adopted, which would indicate, that a new significant effect notseported in that document might occur. Bused on the information and analyses above,_there is do substantial new inttjrmalion indicating that there would be a newsigniticant impact related to Air Quit ity'requirinb m ejor reyistons.to the Certi Ged EiR. P::SIIOIFOd\MlJnndumLl+!.ienJlnn.d�+u� tCA.mSi 17n 75B-68 '2.19 ENVIEONMENTAL IYPAOr-E61•.DET ADDENDUM,, "ARME'Pd ONO EANC41'ay..VIBEO POOPCOT 9EPTENEEE HIr; SANTA ANA.-'OALIYOiS1A No New Information Showing Ability: to Rednce StggifieuiitEffects in the Certified EIR. Then:' ace no alternatives to thed'roiect or additional mitiginon measures that would substantially reduce one or` more significant -impacts -l* tainiiie to Air Quality identified in and considered by the Ccitified EER. Y:'SH01604'•.\ddmdumWdd".d=Ldocx .,W:@Si 1',, 75B-69 2-20 ¢HVIRONYRHTAI,-IMPAOT REPORT ADDENDUM ARPTUMSIR IPII ARMRTRONa RANCH.RP.VISM MOIZUT SANTA ANAsOALIRORNIA 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES NEW %tm No satlltRan:a tMaIdd (lie prbie4: =slgihlaaat Sm rr. chug hAiN "'Impict-" Imputi. Prev6sA6RIyeM- (a) Ili ve.asubstantial adverse effect, eitherdirectly or through habitat niodilications; on any species iduatirml as a candidate, sensitivc, nr-spacial status,.pei:ies"in local at regional plans, E] El 9. pohlics, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department: of Fis_li and Cameor.U;S, Fish end WildH1c!Scrvica (b) Have a substantial ndveise effect an any'riparlan habitat or other sensitive natural community ide ntificd in local or regional'plans, El 1:11 z policies, -and regulations or by Ilia ;California apartment of fish and Crime or U:S. Fish.and Wild]ife.Service? '(c)' Adversely impactledcrally prote'cted+ectlands'(including, hot not limited to, innish, vc'mal pool coastil, etc,) either indnidually or'In cclprhination with the knot>;fi orprobahle 'El ❑. impacts-, mpacts of othix activities through dir&t"removal,rtillmg� hydrological inlcrru lion, or' other means? (d) ConFllcrwith any local policies orordivances,protecting biologrealresoun,cs; such as a tree pruservation policy or ❑ ❑ ordinance? Analysis of Project"Changes: a) The Cali fornia,Department of Fi; (CNDDB)'Rgrgfind $,) (2016) p, -Wildlife's DiVcrsityDatabase, on of potentially records scaich'did riot identi fy any recorded itccurrcnccs of fcdcrul or State thrciicnetl-or endangered speI ic¢ within a3•mile radius of [6cPrnject site. However, the records earch did identify occurrences of California rareplants rank I B species within a 3 -utile radius of the Project site (southern.tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, mud nama,:and San Bernardino aster).' Although these species are unlikely to occu`ron the Project site, there potential to occur on the Project site citmot be ruled' out because these plants occur in disturbed ltnbitats: In addition; the Certified GTR identifled the potential for burrowing owls to occur on the Project site. Finally; the.Certified EIR identified the potential for raptors'tc;utilize the Project site asf'oriagiiig habitat. The Revised Project would'aoniply with Mitigation Measure BIO -I in4lia Certified EIR,which requires I construction surreys for burrowing owls. In.addition, a biological snldy, including a site sm-VTY,.would be conducted for the Revised Project to identify any species with the'potential to occur on theProject site. It is anticipated that any impacts to candidate, sensitive, or, special status species would be'mitigated to a less than significant level, The Certified EIR also concludeci that impacts to special -status species would be reduced to's less than significant level kith implementntion of Mitigation Measure BIO -l. Therefore, tte Revised Project would not result in «; nesignificridt impacts beyond those_' identified in the Certified "EIR. No new mitigation measures am -required. b) 'Ilia northern portion of the Project site is developed with a small sanctuary and a.parking lot and the southern portion is,undeveloped. The Project site is located in an urban area. Based on a review of current aerial images, the Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natuml.coramunities identitied,by the California Departmentof Fish and Came'(C:DFG) or the P;':SFfnlRa4tAddrn�hvnlAildaialo¢i.docs „49aD5: t'» 75B-70 2-21 8NVIRONHH0•tAL IMPACT ABYOE'r AUUENUVM. SLNTYMDE] 2017 ARMSTEOKO' RANCK REVISED PROJECT SANTA ANA. OALIPORNIA United Stmusp Fish arid Wildlife Serviee (USFWS) Therefore imptemen(auoii of the Revised Project would hot impact "any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural comtnuitityidentitied in local or regioual.plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, and no'tmngation-is required. The Certified EIR also concluded that no ripariatfhabitat or other sensitive natural community would be impacted by ihaApproved Project, Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in pow sitnii ficam impacts beyond those idcnti lied in the Certified EIR: No new mitigation mettsures are required, c) The Certified FIR did not identify Howcvor, the guidance, for delincal Cur iiflcation of the FIR in 20021 tl of P.ngincors (USACE) or CDFWj drainages are observed on,the Proj, jurisdictional delineation -would be authorization from. the CDFWr the Board (RWQCit). Compcnsatoryi beyond those required. fictional wctlands'or waters or the Project site. fictional wetlands and waters has changes since rnscncc.of arcas`subject to United Slates Army Corps at cannot be ruled out. if potentially, jurisdictional iring the biological survey, an additional A, impacts to jurisdictional areas would require and the Santa -Ana Regional Water Quality Control i may be required as part of the perinitting processes, be able to be reduced to a'less than' significant, level tcle'signTeatures which'shall be discdssed in !refore, the Rayised Project "would not'rdsultin ne\q in the Certified SIR. No new mitigation mensures.a e d) 116 northern portion of the Projects'tte.is developed with a small sanctuary "and o parking lot and the southern portion is undeveloped.'lhere;are "no trees on the southern portion of the Project site and the Revisi;d Project would not'impact imy of the existing trees on the uorthem portion ;of the Project site; tl eiefore,"no frees d cold be remo4ed, cut, prpr ed, broken, or injure¢, -as psrt.of the Revised Prgjecl.;There:forc, the Reiiiscd Project would not cotiniet.with the provisions in the City's Municipal Code. The Reiised,Projcct %m uld not rccult it' a significant impact related to local policies"or.ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation is required. The Corti lied F.IRconcluded that impacts of the Approved Project related to conflict:with any local policies or ordinances }x0t0e1i11gbioiogi6al resources .would be less than significant and -no mitigation measures wore required. Theret'ore,:the Revised Project would not result hrnew- sigr.i icant impacts beyond tlto,e identified"in the Certified MR. No new, mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Based on the analysis and infonna-don aliovo, Mitigation Measure "©IO -1 includedin the Certified EIR"for the Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. BI0-1 Thirty days prior to the issuance ora grading permit, the City of Santa Ana shall raluire.1he applicant to hire a;qualiftcd biologist with appiopriateyesource agency permits to survey.within"dle limits of"disturbance for thatphaseof developtncnt/construciion (i.c., the residential or church portion'of the project site) to determine Ilse presence of active burrows for burrowing owl. Any active burrows Found during survey efforts sball be mapped on the construction plans. 1':151101 2-22 75B-71 CN VIRONEII NTAL'. IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM' 9£PTENCER IREE ARMRTIIONO RANCN :R9VI9 ED -PROJECT SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA if an active bturow is;present, the active site shall be protected 'nntil nesting activity has,ended is c6milliance with"§3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Nesting activity for raptors in the project region nomially occursfrom February I to June 30. To protect active Uttrrows, the following restrictions on construction are required between February l Sand June 36 (unless burrows -.ire no longer active, as determined by qualifiedliiologist):' I. Clearing looms will be estiiblished.a minimutn of 100 feet in any direction front ally active borrow. 2..: Access and surveying will not be allowedwithin 50 feet.of any active burrow. Construction during the tion -nesting season call occur onlyff a:qualified biologist has determined that the burrows are no longer active. if an active borrow is:observed during the non -nesting season, a qualified biologist"shall monitor llte burrow: and evacuate it using CDFG-approved burrow closure procedures. Ffnding� Related to. Biological Resotirces No New SignifieanlEffects Requiring Major Certified NfR Revisions. Based on the Foregoing. analysis and; information, there is no evidencethatProject mudiCications require a major change to the Certified EIR. The Project changes will not result in new significaru environmental impacts related to Biological Resources, and there is no substamial'increase in dto severity of impacts `descr hed. is the Certified EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Rcgt inforinatioh in the record, or otherwise available:[] circulinstances pertaining to Biological Resources FIR. No New Information Showing. Greater Signife Addendum has analyzed all available relevapt int information that was not available at the.tinie the significant.effecrnot. reported in that documentin to is no changes io the .cts than the Certified Elit.'1'his .i,t6 detemtine whether there is new s adopted, which would indicate that -a new ur. Based on the information and analyses that tliere would be a new significant imPacf to the Certified EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effect's in the Certified EIR,'Fhere are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more sibmificant impacts pertaining.to Biological Resources identified in'and considered by the Certified EIR. F:tJUUf Wl'�AiklrnrlvmrAJdendum.aocl afFhbErl?» 75B-72 2-23 EffwROK0YNTAL INPACr REPORT ADDENOC.N-IRMATRONC RANCH RaYCIED PYOJECT' 9EPTEYRCY 7010 SANTAMM CALIPORNIA 2:$ CULTURAL RESOURCES Fr• .In r nsnhlrnnu:ll Sl�ninannl Surae Chanyu from MUM the prgjert.� nnpaul LDpacl nmrlauv Analrnu (a) Cause a substantial n6crsr ebange in [tic sivilieaneeofa D historical res-6urce as defined in 05064,5? (b) Cause a substantial advLTsc change in the significance of an ClD archaeologicalre'ouece ursoaiIt iO X15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique palwntolooical resource ur Silc4 (d) Disturb any human remains: including those inlcmd Outside of ❑ E fnrnal cemeteries? Analysis of Project Changes: a) CEQA;defines n "historicatresource" as aresource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) is listed in, or determined eltgibie-for listing in, the California Register. of Historical Resources (California Register); (?) is listed in a local register of historical Sesouices•'as defined in Public Resources.Code (PRC) Section5020.1(k); (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC -Section i024.1 (g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a pmjccl's Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CrQll Guidelines Section 15064.5[al). ,According to the City of Santa Ana Crencral Plan, Land Use Element (1998), the Project site.is not considered to be a National or State historic resouror; and is located in the dowinown.historie district. Tn addition, according to the Office of Historic Preservation, there are no historic resource on the Project site. The Revised Project, which includes 42 single-family detached residential units and a reduced or.smaller.Chwelt campus, would not affect any structures that are eligible for listing as a historic resource. The Christ Our Savior Church parish was founded in 2005 and the buildiirgs on the Project site were constructed atter 2005. `therefore, the Revised Project would not result in eny-unpacts related to historical resources and no mitigation is required. The Certified EIR also did not identify any impacts -to historical resources that would occur from implementation of the Approved Project -JI erefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified ECR. No new mitigation measures are required. b) According to the City of Santa Ana General flan, Land Use Element (1998), the Project,site is not located in an area of known -archeological sensitivity. However, because the general area was once settled by Native American groups, there remains the probability that archeological materials may be present below the surface: 'therefore, similar to the Approved Project, unknown areh(wlottical resources could be exposed during l;qading'and site: preparation for the Revised Project. The Revised Project wrottl(I be ruluired to comply with Mitigation Measure CR -1 from the Certified Ella. As specified in Mitigation Measure CR -i, if archeological resources are discovered at any time during construction activities, those activities would be halted in the vicinity of the. Find until it can be assessed for significance bya qualified archaeologist. California Ounce oCHistoric Preservttiou, (range County Historical. Landmarks, hap:/Iohp.parks.ea.govi 9pagc_id=21445 (accctiscd Scptcmbea3, 2017), P: ISHOIGn4•_AddmdnmWdderduiu.dnca 40"5,17n 75B-73 2-24 8NYI8ONYCNTAL IMPACT -REPORT ADDENDUM SEPTEMBER 2014 -ARMSTRONG 8AK0681'YtSBU PROjKCt SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA hatplementatiori f Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered arcliaealogical resources to a less than signi ficant level. T7te Certified E1R also concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources with hnplementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1. Therefore, the Revised Projectwotild not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR,.No new mitigation measures are required. c) Accotding,to.the County of Orange General Plan, Resottrce_Element (2015), the Project site is not located in a general:area of paleontological sensitivity. 1'lre Project Site was historicallyused for agriculture. Previous tilling of the site for agriculture would have resulted in ground disturbance of up to no more than 2 feet in depth. According to the Certified HIR, if excavation on the Project site exceeds 5 feet in depth, the potential exists for fossil remains to be encountered at previously -unrecordedfossil sites. The Revised Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures CR -2 through CR -11 from the Certified E1R. 'these treasures comprise a' paleontological monitoring program in compliance with the'Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard measures for.reducingpotential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. implementation of Mitigation Measures-C'R-2 throu;;h CR-.ltwould reduce impacts to paleontologictd resource are to a less than sibmiftcam level by ensuring the appropriate identification, treatment; and curalion of any paleontological resources that Have the potential to -yield substantial information about history or prehistory. The Certified EiR also concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant _impacts to paleontological resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -2 through CR -1 1. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified.in the Certified E[R. No new 'mitigation measures are required. d) No known human remains are present oil the Project site, and there are no facts or.evidence to support the idea that Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the Project site. However; as described above, buried and undiscovered archaeological remains; including human remains; inay be present below the mound surface in portions of the Project site. Disturbing human remains could violate.the State's Health and Safety Code, 9l,6well m destroy the resource. In the;nnlikely event that human remainsare encountered during grading, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures forth respectful handling orhuman remains daring the earthmoving activities would be adhered to, Construction contractors are required to adhere to,California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064,5(e), PRC Section 5097, and Suction 7050.5 of the State's Health and Safely Code. To ensure proper treatment of burials, in the event of an unanticipated discovery ofa burial; human bone; or suspected human bone, the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately; the area of the find be protected, and the contractor immediately notify the County Coroncr of the find: The contractor, developer, and the County Cotuncr are required to comply with lbe provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e)JRC Section 5097.95, and Section 7050.5 of the Slate's Health and Safely'Code. Compliance with these provisions would ensure that any'powtulial impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less thin significant by ensuring. appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by Stalc law., No mitigation is required. Because impacts to human remains would be less'thim significant, the Revised Project 1?�Stn116U4LWdmdu,'Addcndum.docz atfl,YY3i1 h. 75B-74 2-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AUUENnUMARMSTRONG RANCH:REVTSEU PROJEUT SEPTEMBER W7 SANTA ANA. IOALIPORNIA would not result itftiety significant:itnpacts beyond lhose:idLmifed hithe Certified EIR. No nevi mitigation measures are required., Mitigation Measures: Based on the analysis and information alcove, Mitigation Measures CR -I through CR -1 i included in the Certified BIR for the Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. CR -1 If cultural in are encountered during monitoring, testing, eonstruction,.or any subsurface excavation nr other disturbance, all such activities shall cease in that location, and the City'Aall be notified. A yualiticd'archaeologistshall be coniactcd to identify and evaluate the''' materials andto design and implement any mitigating measures found to bejustifcd. Additional work required may include Phase 2 or Phase 3studies. No construction activities shall resume until authorization is obtained front the City'sDireetor of Planning and Building Agency. CR -2 Prior to any earth -moving activity in the parcel,.a,rertebrate paleontologist retained by the developer and aliproved by:the City of Santa Ana shall develop a.sto age agreement with the LACMVP, the Countyot Orange paleontologic collection storage facility, or another acceptable museum repository to.allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any'fossil remains recovered in the parcel as a result of the monitoring progiram, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the.museum repository. CR -3 The palcantologisl shall develop a fnttigatiodplan and a discovery chruscflreatment :plan that, when implemented during earth -moving activities in the parecl, Shall allow for time recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and sit6.data uncovered by th6e activities. C114 The paleontologist and a paleontologic construction monitor shall attend a pregrading; meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures acid lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earth -moving activities, particularly When a monitor is not on site. CR -5 Paleontologic monitoring.of eartlrnioving activities (particularly trenching) will be conducted by tile' monitor on a"full-time basis bit" these activities liavve exceeded a depth 3 feet below cutretit. grade, Eardt-inoving activities in areas of the parcel where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but otherwise not disturbed shall not be monitored. Monitoring -shall include the inspection of debris piles'generated by trenching and other earth -moving activities at depths greater than 5 feet below current grade. CR -6 If fossil remains are found by the monitor, earth -moving' activities will be diverted temporarilyaromid tate fossil site until the renutins have been recovered and these activities allowed to proceed'througlrtha.site by the titoniior: P:15HOI M4'•,AddecduiiVAddcndum 1rcec09:aJlixi 2-26 75B-75 "VIN DNM CN'rAL IMPACT kBPUZTADDENDUM SEPTEMBER Pd L9 'AYNBTRONO,RANCH EF.VI9Rtl.PR<IJRCT- SANTA ANA, CALIYCRNIA CR -7 If too few or no fossil remains -are -found after.50 percent of earth-movink-activiti6s in wrens of the parcel underlain by a particular, roc. unit Iiavebeen completed, monitoring can be reduced or -discontinued in the remaining areas of the parcel where underlain by the same rock unit. CR -8 If fossil remains are encotintered by earth -moving activities t39ien th.e monitor is not onsite, these'activities shall be diverted around'the'fassil site and the fnrinitorcalled to'the'site inmrediately to, recover the remains; CR79 If fossil remains are:found, up to 6,000 pounds'(3 tons) of fossiliferous'-rockshell be recovered from the fossil:site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples maybe recoveredfrotn other sampling sites in the rock unit. The total weight of all processed'samples firm -the parcel shall not exceed 6,600 -pounds. CR -f0 tlpy recovered fossil+remains shall be prepared to the point :ot identification and idem fred to the lowest tasonotiiic level possible bykhowledgeablepaleontologists. peeimen nuinbers:und co respondirig fossil site numbers as appropriate; in specimen traysand, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data.cards) alogued, and associated spccimcn dala`and corresponding geologic and phic site data shall 'be archived (spccimcn.and sitanumbers,and corresponding tered into appropriate museum repository catalogs: and computerized data buses) at the museum repositoryby a laboratory technician: The remains then shall be ..>; ... accessioned into maintained, mid; fauce',study by -q, For CR -1 f A final report of results and findings 'shall be prepared bydhe paleontologist for. submission to the City of Santa Ma and tile ,inuseuln repository following accessioning of the Proposed project fossil collection int.othe museum repository- Fos epository fossil collection. The report shall describe.the'geology and stritigmphy ofthe parcel, suiimnarize field and laboratory rnethods used, include a faunal list and'an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens; evaluate the, scientific importance of the specimens, acid discuss the relationship of any newly recorod fth ossil:site in dieparcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded front the fossil -bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions. Findings Related to Cultural Resources: No avert" Signitielkht.Effects Requiring NIstjdr Certified EIR'Re' inions, Based on the foregoing analysis and information; 4here is no evidence that Project modifications require a major change to the. Certified EiR. The Prc?jeetchanges.will not resuli in new, significant e-nvir6mnental impacts related to Cultural Resources;, and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described' in the Certified EIR; PASI IOI Y]JlAJ3enanmv4ddErtdunl:docs' IdfraS!I ^�. 75B-76 2-27 RKV/ RONMENTAL IMPACT -REPORT ADDUNUUM :ARMSTRONO RANCH REVISED;PROJECT SKPTEMEUR TcIi SANTA ANA, CAGIPORNIR No:$ubstantial Change in Circumstances Requiting blajor'Certified EIR Revisions. There:is no mat inforion in'the rucord or othenvise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in eircmnslunces pertaining to Cultural Resources that would require major eliangesto the Certified Lim_ No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EIR,'[his Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information -to determine whether there is nein information that wast' noeavailable at the time the Ella was adopted, which Mould indicate thata new significant effect not rctrgrted in that document might occur. Based on the.information and 'analyses tibove, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would he new,significant impact related to Cultural Resources requiring major revisions'to the'Cert1fied EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR. There are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that Would substantially reduce oue.or more signi fieantimp acts tu pertaining to.CulraI Resources ideititied in and considered by the Certified LIR. Pot$IIIJIGC1d41dJeiiduddA+idnd+im.ducs gQ9Aj5p7-- 75B-77 2?8 ¢NYIAONMDNTAG-U(I'ACT RTVORT ADDINDUM w4MSTAONU RANCH A¢Yr 3T.O PRO ACT' 161"rCMDDC iD19' SANTA ANA', OAI,IrORN1A- 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS No" mue is Sob l3ena FF'Utf?fI,lFle lr/'eject; 5[6019030( scwr0 Ch4ner from Impnd Impact 1'1m, I..x ADaly,i, (;I) Expose people orstruOures to potential silbsraiitial adverse CITeels, including the risk Of loss. inlury. or death involvine: i) Rupture of a. knovm earthquake fault; as. delineated on the must recent,Alquist-Priolo Earth(plake,Fault Zoning Map L3 11issued by,.thu:State Geologist lour the -thea or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong sei5micgniundsliakini;? ❑ iii) Seismic -related Piound failure, incEding liquelaction? ❑ iv) Unidslides? ❑ Restilt in substantial soil erosion or die IZ of to soil?lj e) Would the - project result in the loss ora unit ucg culo ie featuie? (d) Is the'project Ic ated-onstrata ,or soil;that is=unstable tir that would become unstable as result ofthe.project and potentially' ❑ E]resultin on- or otl-sitelandshcle; lateral spreading, subsidenee,' liquefaction, or colla ie? (t:) Where sewers am not available for clic disposal of wastewater, is dleloil capable ot'supporung the we of septic hiuki.or 11 El disposal systems?, Analysis of Project Changes: a) (i) As with all of Southern'California, the Project site is sulijeetto strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults: According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan, Seismic Safety Element(1952, reformatted 2010)i,no active, potentially, active, or nactive fadlts are known to exist in Santa An'a. In addition, according to.the City of or Aiia General Plan, Land Use Elernent (1998), there are no Alquist-Ptiolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City. Therefore, the Revised Prajectwould not expose people or structures 10 substantial adverse effecls'involving the rapture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Ptiolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and no mitigation is required. -1'he Certified EIR also concluded that the Project site is not subject to fault rupture. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified E1R. No new mitigation measures are required. (ii) The Prolect,site, like all of Southern,California, is located in an active seismic region—Ground shaking resulting from earthquakes' associated with both nearby and more distant faults is likely,to occur. According to die City of Santa Ana General Plan, Seismic Safety Element (1952, reformatted 2010), the City is'in close proximity to two major faults: the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone and the Whittier -Elsinore Fault Zone, The San Andreas and Raymond Faults are also proximate to the City. Of these Aults, the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is considered most likely -source fnrAiture earthquakes. Because of the proximity of these faults, there is a potential for seismic shaking generated from active faults to occur during the life of the project. y The Revised Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures G1O-1,'GEO-2, and GEO-=F from the Certified FIR. Mitigation Measure GEO-I requires preparation of a final I' S11016,04 -A lik:mJ49(05117D 2-29 75B-78 n NVIRGNMENY'AL IMPAU'IREYURT' ADDENDUM ARMSTRONG RANUII REVISBD YRGJEU'r 'SEPTNM BEN ]1f} SANTA ANA. DALIFDRVIA design geotechnical report and compliance with tecoinniendations'of the final'desiam guotechnical.report: Mitigation MeasureGEO-2 requiiescompliance with the: Californih Building Cade, which stipulates appropriate seismic iesign provisions that. shall be implemented with design and construction of the Revised Project. Mitigation Measure GF,O.4 requires that a registered geologist ensure that that project adheres to the recommendations of die final design guolechniaal report.' Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GE6-2, and 6EO.4 would reduce.any, potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less"than significant level. The Certified EIR.also,concluded that Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO.4 would reduce impacts related to strong scismic'shaking to a less than significant luvel. Therefore; the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are'requirm . (iii) According. to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map, the Project site is loaded in a liquefacrion zones In addition,_acctirding to the City of Santa" An General Plan, Seismic Safety Element (1982; reformatted 2Q10), the Prgiect site is loctated in a potential liduefction arca'. However, the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the Certified EIR concluded, that the Project siie ha' s a low potential for liquefaction' and that liquefaction is unlikely to occur..Thurcfore; impaets of the Revisud Project related to, liquefaction during a seismic event would.bc less than "signiricant.and no mitigation is required. Strong ground shanking can cause soil settlement by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly,packed, thereby reducing pore space: The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the Certified EIR (concluded that diene is a very low to non-existent potential for ground settlement on the Project site during a scisntic'eventTherefore, impa'ct's of the Revised Project related to seismic -related ground failure, during a seismic event would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Lateral 'displacetiient of surticial blocks of sediment can occur as a'result of liquifaction in a. -subsurface layer. -The Preliminary Geotechaical Investigation Report prel6ad for the Certified EIR concluded that there is a low probability of` lateral spreading to occur on the Project site during it seismic event. Therefore, impactrelated to lateral spreading during a seismic event would be less than significant and no mitigation is required, If near surface soils Vary in composition, strong earthquake shaking carr cause non-uniform compaction of the soil, resulting in movement of the near -surface soils which can result in differential compaction. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the Certified EIR concluded that there is a ld%v probability of differential compaction to occur on the Project site. However, the Certified EIR also concluded that strong earthquake shaking could cause non-uniforn compaction of the soil which could result in damage to on-site structures. Therefore, there is a potential for the Revised Project to be impacted by differential compaction -during a seismic event. The Revised Project would be"required to comply with Mitigation Measures GEO=1, GE -O-2, and GEO-4 trout the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires preparation of a final State of California, lltvision or Mines and Geology. 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones. I'^.$n0160441Jdmdmn',.gddeNJum.Jm:x caY1ar l7u 75B-79 2-30 ¢NTf¢ONYENTALUXPAOT RRYUNT AUULNUUH 3&PT¢M bL& 901l A¢N9ttC 'AUNU AANCAY119F➢ YAOJZCT BANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA design geotechnical report and compliance with recommendations of the final design geotechnical report. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires compliance with the California Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic desist provisions that shall be implemented with design and construction of the Revised Project. Mitigation Measure GEU- 4 requires that a registered geologist ensure that That project adheres to the recommendations of the final .design gcolcelmical report. Implementation of Mitigation'Measures GEO-1, GEO-2,'and GE -0.4 would{ reduce any potential impacts related to seismic -related kzound failure to a lass than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded that Mitigation Measures GE0=1, GF,O-2, and GEO.4 would reduce impacts related to seismic -related ground Failure to a less than significant level. There(ore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certilied EIR'. No new mitigation measures are required. (iv) Scismically'induced 'landslides and other slope Etilures are common o"wrrcnces during or soon after gartkquakes in -areas with sibmificant Ground slopes. According to: the State of California SLismic Hazard 7ones map, the Project sito is not located in an earlhqu ke- induced landslide zone.' In addition, the Project site is rela(ively,0at, and the Preliminary Geoteclinieal Investigation Report prepared For the Certified EIR aid -not idcriify any existing landslides or potential for landslides on the property, Therefore,lhc Revised Project would nor expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismically induced landslides, and no mitigation is required. The Certified EIR also concluded that no impacts related to landslides would occur. Tiierefore, the Revised Project would not result yin new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are _required. ' b) During consn-diction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existingconditions. Additionally, during'a'storm event, soil erosion and loss of topsoil could occur al;an accelerated rate. l7te Revised Project would be required to dimply with Mitigation Measures GEO-5 and GEO-6 from the Certlfied.ElR, which require compliance with. the Construction General Permit, and implementation of Erosion Control best managermentpractices (BM.Ps). The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stonn Plater Pollution Prevention Plan (S1iPPP) and implementation of construction BMPs, including Erosion Control BMPs, during construction activities. Over, long term, the Revised ['reject would increase the impervious surface arca on the Projcet site compared to usisting cundl tions which would not be prone, to erosion or siltation. The remaining portion of the Pty jcct site would primarily be landscaping, which -would minimize on-site erosion and sihation. Compliance with the Construction General Prnnit and implementation of Erosion Control BMPs, as specified in Mitigation Measures GEO-i and GEO-6, would reduce impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil to a less than significant level. The Curtifed FiR also concluded that Mitigation Measures 0E0-5 and GEO-6 would reduce impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil to a lem than sig ifiaant Icvcl. Therefore, thc.Revised Prqject would not result in new significant impacts beyond those ielc�rJtified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Scare of California; Division of ,%leas and,Geolo€y. 1918. Seismic Hazard Longs.. P!M1016bI'Adk... M OdJ ndiim ti.c. s69fa$eJ7A _ 2-31 75B-80 ENVIRONMYNTAL1MPA01''NtYONT AUUYNVUN ARMSTRONG RAMI REVISED PROJECT' SEr'rENnSR.Y01]` SANTA AN ,-CALIPORNTA c) \o unique.geolpgic featines are present on the Project site; therefor e, the Revised Project would not result in the loss ofla unique geologic feature.and no mitigation is required, The Certified EIR alsodid not identify any unique geologicfeatures on the Project site. Therefore,.the.Revised Project would -not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified E1R- No new mitieation measures are required. it) Asstaled above in Response 2.6..n.iv, there are no existing landslides or potential for landslides on the Project site. Therefore, theReAsed,Project'would not expose people or structures to advcisceffcicts involving landslide's and no mitigation.is required. As stated abo' cin Response 2AJi.iii, the Piclimihary Gcolechnioal Investigation Report,prepared for the Certified _EIR concluded that there is a low probability of lateral spreading, non -seismic related differential compaction, collapse, or liquefaction,to occur on the Pruiect site. Therefore, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The Preliminary Gcowc hnical Investigation Report prepared for the Certified EIR also concluded that there is a low probabilityof nun seismic-relatucl,differential compaction to occur on the Projct site. The PrelintinaryGcolcchnical Investigation Report prepared fortis Certified EIR indicted that soils oil thNPro-ject site have a moderate potential for. cxpani iup. in addition, on-sitic soils may be severely corrosive when wct. Thercrprc, there is a potential for the Revised Project tolii: affc4:tcd by -strata or soil thatareor that would become unstable. The -Revised Projectwould be required to. comply with Mitigation MeasuresGEO-1 through GEO-4 from the.Certitied EIR. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires preparation of a final design geotechnical report and compliance with recommendations of the final design geotechnical report: Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires compliance With the California Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be inmlentented with design and. construction of the Revised Project, Mitigation Measure GE0-3'requires sufftcientreinforcement of building fotting"s to mitigate -for impitctsrelated to expnnsi��e soils, Mitigation.Measitre Glib -4 requires that,a registered gcologiSL ensure that thatproject adheres to the recumtttendations or the final -design gcotcchnical report, hnplementaiion of Mitigation Measures GEU-1 through GE6-4 would reduce any potential impacts relatui to unstable soils to a lass than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded Mitigation Measures GFOA through,GFO.4 would reduce irnpaels relined to unstable soils to a less than significant level, Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No neve mitigation measures are required. e) Similar to the Approvcd Projcct, the Revised Projcct d6eq not include construction of or connections to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore; the Revised Project would not result in impacts related to the soil's capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in now signifieaut impacts beyond those identified in the Certified PTR. Therefore, pursuanl.lu,S1ate CEQ.4 Cruielcli ies Section 15162, the City may elect to prepare an, Addetidum to the FIR. I'ASI 1016045AJdrndum'�lddendu..,Iuux 4Y911)i47o 75B-81 a-32 FNV79ONYERTAL. I NPACT REPORT ADDSNDVY BEPTEYR'2"Et], Nlitigation ]Measures: ARMSTRD NO RAN6N: VIS ED' CALIFORNIA' BANTA ANA, pDRNIA Based on the analysis and information above, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-6 included in the Certified ElR for the Approved Project would be -applicable to the Revised Project. GEO-1 A ficial design geotechnical report shall be prepared for the residential and church development to provide sh'iictuie-specific geotechnical recommendations. The final report shall address all issues initially covered in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Final recommendations on earthwork, spread footings with slabs -on -grade, reinforced mat foundations, post -tensioned mats, friction piles, cathedral retaining (basement) walls, and measures to address soil corrosion shall be identified. The final report shall specify foundation recommendations to ensure issues associated with underlying soft, compressible clay Soils are addressed. Construction -of the e projeti t shall comply with all recommendations in the final geotechnical report. GEO-2 Structures shall be designed, in accordance with the 1994 California Building Code_ to resist lateral loads due to strong enrlhquakes.al'this site, as specified in the Geolechnical Report {scat Table 3 o(thaedocumeni). GFo-3 To reduce the potential for damage due.to soil expansion; slabs -on -grade shall be provided with sufficient reinforcement and the footings shall extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. Post -tensioned slabs -on -grade are another viable alternative to effectively address effects -associated with expansivesoils. GE04 A qualitied registered geologist shall (1) revie%vthe final construction plans and specifications and (2) observe the earthwork and foundation installation in order to ensure adherence to all recommendations. GE0,5 'Phe applicant shall submit Notice of lntent(NOI) to the SNVRCB for coverage under the Siatewide General Construction Activi4y Stormwater permit and shall comply with all applicable requirements, including the preparation of aStormwaier Pollution Prevention Plan. A copy the NOI shall be submitted to the City Development Services Department prior to issuance of.a kading permit. GEO-6 Erosion control practices shall be employed andmaintained on all vacant areas on the prcject site that have been graded. Findings Related to Geology -and Soilsi No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified EiR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that Project modilicalions require a major change to the Certified E1R. The Project changes will not result in now significant environmental impacts related to Geology and Soils, and there is substantial increase in the seventy orimpacis described in the Certified Elk. P"•SHOTGM17'_4ddcrdumWdJenamzduci t:.FI.�D5il7s 75B-82 2-33 RNWRONURNTAL IMPAOT REPORT AOORNOUM 'ARM8T&DNC RANCH REVISEO.PROIRCT 8EP"r9MEEN 9u11 SANTA ANA.'CALIFOENIA No:Substantial Change in Circuinitances Requlrhig �IaJo'r Certifcd CIR Revisions. There is no information in the r c6rd or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Geology. and Soils that would require major changes to the Certified BIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified CIR. This Addendum has analyzed alLavailable relevant information to`determine whether there is new information that was not available at thc`.timethe FIR wase adopted; which would indicate that a new significant efrect not reported in that document might occur. Based -on the intbrimatioii and.analyses above, there is no''substantial new informationindicating that there would-be a new significant impact related to Geology and Soils requiring major revisions to the Certified EIR, Nn New Information "Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR. Tliere are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce error mores ':Fie tit impacts Pertaining to Geology and Soils identified in and considered by the Certified EIR. IIAM101b11atndde... 76 75B-83 2-34 +RNVIYONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMSTIUNU RANU11 RRVIIRn PROJRu`T �9e PTBMBRR 4,17 SANTA ANA. UALIPORNIA 2.7 GWEENHOUSE GAS FA-USSIONS uu.r Alam_ NosulmantW I v6ldd tile project: .\IRninuml hNPael Stwe- Impact 'Chan-efrom P inuplfnnl}au (aj CiCllhra[L gn:enitoase. gas zniissinn-Ieuliecdnectly'or in direclty, El 11 0 dint ma have a'steiiificSnt im laLt on the' environment? (b)- Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted 11 El- for the nurnus nfreducinn the emissinnc of ereenliame aNsuv? Analysis of ProjectChanges: a) The emission of geeenhousegases,(GHG) was nut an issue identified and analyzed in the certified Armstrong Ranch Final EIR: The CEQ k guidelines were updated in March 2010 to require analysis ofclitnate change in C1EQA documents. However, at the.time ofthe Final' EIR. certification, G[IG emissions had been recognized as an etiviromnental'issuc since the 1970s when the United Stares Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act (92 Sllx1.601, 1978), which required the President to establish a program to assist in understanding and tvsponding to natural and human -induced climate processes, and since the 1980s when the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC C)'�yx's formed to.assess scientific information related tclimate change. 'Thus, issues related to dimatc change were knoNrit„or`could have been known -,at the - time of the certificalion oClhc Armstrong Ranch Final EIR, Project -related GHG emissions would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. The Revised Project would result in dircctand ndirect emissions of carbon dioxide (CO,), nitrous oxide (NO), acid methane (CH;):Direct Project -related CHIC] emissions include emission from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include::missions from electricity consuniption,,vwater demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GIiG emissions are primarily based oil: cncrgy cinissiotrs from natural _gas usage and automobile emissions. SCAQMD has prepared recommended significance thiesholds for GHGs for local Lead Agency consideration of 3,000 metric tons per year. Impacts associated with the emission of GIiGs would be similar to those that would have occurred under [he Certified BiR Project; however, supplemental analysis of the Remised Project is provided below for inrormational purposes, Construction GHG Emission's. Construction and operation. of the Revised Project would generate GHG omissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the Project's operation (as opposed to its construction). Constmction activities produce coathustion emissions from various sources (e.g., site grading, utility engines; heavy-duty 6onstruction vehicles oil site,.equipment hauling materihls to and from the site, asphalt paying, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew). Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. GHG tmissions associated with consnuction of the proposed Project would occur over the short -tern. LSA calculated GI -IG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project using the California Emissions Estiniatorhlodel (CaIEF.Mod). Calculations for GHG PA: 1101604%AddcndumUddcnduntd ka 09NI'l7x+ 75B-84 2-35 AAY8T80N0 %AN nn•YeVI9YD Pi0¢OT YNVILLo HMF.NTAL IMPAOT N6Yq.RT ADDENOUIF AANTA ANA.,CAM-F OMNIA S YFICK UG0.1ah - - emissions indicate the emissions associated with construction of the Revised Project would be 479 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CQe). SCAQMD.'s GHG emissions policv for curstruction is to amortize emissions ovCr a 30 -year time period. Construction of the proposed Project would result in annual emissions of 1 metric. tons of CO,e per year over the course of 30 yeas-5.Tlie estimated construction emissions.would be below SCAQMD's interim threshold criteria or3,00U metric tons or CO -,e per.year. Thcrofore, Project -construction would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to Ca HG emissions and tvonld not, dirccdy or indire city, haat asignificant impact on the environment, Therefore, no mitigation is required: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Revised Project would be required to implement construction exhaust conimi measures consistent with.SCAQMD Rules .402 and 403 for other;air quality topics discussed above, including tnihiniizationof construction equipment idling unci implementation of propd:rengine tun ia ngnd exhaust controls. Both of these measures would_ reduce GHG emissions during the consItntction period.. Operational GIIG Emissinns..Ung-term operation of the proposed Project would generate - GHG emissions from ;aica and mobile sources and indirect emissions t'roiu stationary sources associated with energy consumptibp..Area-source emissions would be associated with activities that include landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natuml urs for treating, and othcrsources.'Mobilc-source emissions of GI,IGs'would'include project generated vehicle trips associated with on-site residences. Increases.in stationary -source emissions would also occur al oil -site utility providers as a resuli ordeniand for electricity, natural gas, and.wat6v by the proposed prdject. The GHG emission estimate's presented in Table A show the emissions associated with operation of theRevised Project. Appendix A includes the CalEr-Nlod calculations for GHG emissions. Table A: Greenhouse Gus Emissions (MetricTons Per Year) Source: LSA Assnciaue , Inc., Septcnrua an i L CO, = carbon dioxide CH; =methane h.0 = nitrous oxide CO;c= carlxm dioxide e9uix•a(cnt Operation of the RevisedProject would result in an uicrcase of 839.9 metric tomo of CO)e per year. The estimated operational emissions would be below SCAOM D's drall threshold criteria or I':.51101£.nd'•A,iarn.3unr•A'ddendumaaux pC�:YiSA b, 75B-85 2,36 O cratiohal Emissions Percent of Emissions Source CO, CH, A'10 Me Total Construction Emissions Area Source Emissions 10.8 0.0 00 10.9 I Enere Source Emissions 307.2 0.0 0.0 208.1. 25 Mobile Source£missions 5.57:2 0.0 0.0, 557.9 67 lf'astc Source ;missions 10.0 U.6 O.0 24.7 3 Water Source;missions .18.3 0.1 U.0 '21.2: -2' '1'otall:missinns 838.9 100 Source: LSA Assnciaue , Inc., Septcnrua an i L CO, = carbon dioxide CH; =methane h.0 = nitrous oxide CO;c= carlxm dioxide e9uix•a(cnt Operation of the RevisedProject would result in an uicrcase of 839.9 metric tomo of CO)e per year. The estimated operational emissions would be below SCAOM D's drall threshold criteria or I':.51101£.nd'•A,iarn.3unr•A'ddendumaaux pC�:YiSA b, 75B-85 2,36 DNVItONMENTAL IMPACT. RTEORT ADDENDUM SIPTBMRIR: 2017 ARM STSONU RANOH REViSuD PROJECT ,SANTA,AXA.: CALIEURWA 3,000 metric tons of CO2c peryeai•. Therefore, Re%iced Project operation would be considered to. ;Have a less Than sigiifcant impact.rclaled to GHG cmissionsand would not, directly ar 'indirectly; have a signifcant impacton theenvironmciit. Nomitigation is required: b) in' December 2015, the City of Santa Ana adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), Thepurpoge of ttie'CAP into develop and implement strategies to reduce UHG einissions frotn'City operations and the community.'l'lrese strategiesinclude using energy and water more elliCiently, increasing reneuti tble energy, enhancing access In sustainable transportation•tnodes recycling waste, and building sustainable communities. To develop the CAP,' an inventory was conducted to determine baseline GHC}, emissions from the community and From municipal operations far calendar year '2005. In 2014, the `City Council adopted 'emissions "reduction goals for the CAP. For community- wide emissions, 1te reduction goal is, 15 percent below tha basulinc year 2005 by 2020, and 30 percent below the baseline year 2003 hy,2035. The ineasit ies in the CAl' are piojected to accomplish the goals o£ a 15' percent reductionI comm it-'er; emissions.by 202Q and nearly xcach 30. percent_ reduction by 2035.,The Revised Project.would comply the requireuncnts of Title24lCalifonua Green Building Code; which establishes' the minimum cnergyefficiency for new construction in California. The code is set by the State and enforced locally by the City ilunugh lhebuilding permit review and inspection process. Amended'standardawent into effect January 1, 2014 'fneicfore, the RcJised ProjccCwould not"conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or.regolation'adopted for the'purliosc'ofieducmo the emissions of GIICs;;Nomitigation is required. A4itigation Measures: No initigatioii'is riquired. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: No New Significant Effects Requiring Aiajor Certified EIR Revisfons..Based on the foregoing analysis and inforination, there is'no evidence that Project modificanobs, require a major change to the Certified EIR. The Project Changes wiltnot result in thew signi5canl environmental iliipacts telaied to ,CH$G.Emrssions, ,and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the Certified MR. NoSubstantial Clutnge in Circumstances -Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. There is no. information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to GHG.that would require major changes to the Certified EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified Elli,!1'his Addendum has analysed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time: the F.iR was adopted,which would indicate that.a new significant effect no[reported in that document might occur. Based on die infurtnation and analyses above, there is no substantial now infimuation indicating that there would be a new significant impact related to GHG Emissions requiring major revieium to die:Certilied EIR. IqISIfDIGS}{yltldiaalmnl.M1ddcmlum�a i.C9A]S.+I b. 75B-86 2-39 ' AnMa TREND RANDIRA58N O 6N*4RUKMCNTAL IMIADT RRPORT ADDENDUM lANSAANA. CALIVORNIA eEPTDMURR]Vl No New Information,Sh6wing Ability.10 Reduce Significant t✓ffccts in the Certified &IR.'Then! are no altcmatives to.tho Project or additional Mitigation measures drat would substantiallyroilucc one or more signifieanl impacts Pertaining to Cil IG Gmissions'identified'in and considered by the Certified CIR. P9.SIIJ160db�J�lenJumlAddenolmm�k+cx �SA.•'a5.11^'n 75B-87 2-35 ,B NvrRb NYRxrAI.:IWrA.T RRPO RT A➢➢dN➢L•N'.' >"8LPTKUPER 101T, :ARYSTRONO'RANCYI REVISED PROJECT' SANTA'ANA,. CALIFORNIA 2:8: HAZARDS ANDHAZARDOi7S MATERIALS. ntw More Vo Sd6 tnRHa1 IfouldtGepmjece. -sigolacanl ;Scwrt Chengt from tmp,n Impur PivAou4A.AywN (ta)- Create nsigairicnat hir a rl to the public or lite eavlronlnenr through the routine transport, use or disposal 4hazardous ❑ ❑ 21 materials, (b) Haut hazardous. emissions or handle Hazardous or acutely hazardous lnatarlals-subsianceorwaaedithiii'one.gaarterinilcyf' ❑ ❑" ®, an existing or ru used school? (c) [3e located on a site.which is located on'a list orhaiardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Governmeat Code Section O 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create-a.signiticant. hazard to ®. the publicorthe environniene? (dl For a project located within an airport :land -use plan or where. such a plan has riorbecn adopted; within twinodes when: uta publiu` airport orphblio use airport, would dlt project result is n safety ❑ ❑ hazard Por "eu ale residin^nr wnrkin"inahe rn ect areal. Analysis of Project Changes; a) Hazardous materials are chetnicali that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap,:and aro defined as being toxic, corrosfve,,flammable, reactive, .in -irritant, or strong sensitizer. Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under, the United States Departmeut of Transportation 'haztirdous nia-terials" regulations and the,United Sta `tes Lnvirotunental •Projection Agettcy.(EPA) :`hazardous Waste rep atioiis 'Hazardous waste's require special handling and disposal -because oftlieii,pote ttial to tf image public health and the environment: llre probable frequency and severity of c nsequencc5 from the routine transport, use, ordisposal of hazardous'inateirials is affected by the,type of substance, thequantity used or managed, and the nature of the.activtties and operations. Construction activities associated with the Revised limited and would.be in compliance°w,itl release of hazardous materials during co would not result in a significant hazard•.t to the small quantities of these materials Project -would use a limited amount of avy equipment operation jor site excavation, s chemicals present during construction' is ovemenl regulations. The potential for the s low, and even if a release wouldnccur, it 3; surrounding land uses, or environment due -with construction vehicles. Accordingao the Certified E.M,•due to historical amicuhand use of the Project site, on-site soils could contain pesticide residues. However, according to the phase I ESA conducted for the Approved Project, it is unlikely that pestictdes iintl herbicide use from Farminghas adversely affected soils deeper,than 2 feet below the giourid surface. Due to geologic constrains on the Project site, it is likely'that the Revised [,reject Would icqui[c removal of the tirst'rew feet of soil. Worker exposure to hazardous mafetials during excavation ofthese soils would lie avoided provided the applicable regulations for handling of hacutlous matc6ats'are followed. I'i511017aalAad�n,liiiu'�•\t3rl�tinlnmrbua nWA9ji 11n 2-39 INVIRONMENr AL IMPACT IMPORT ADDENDUM ARMS'r RONO RANOtl REVISED PROJEUT:. SPPTYMBIR 1611 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA' The Revised Project to i otisfruct A2.single-fancily t-6sidences and a church facility. Residential use's and churches typically do not presenia hazard associated with the accidental telcascof hazardous substances into the environment because large volumes of hazardous materials are not -anticipated to be used on, stored on, disposed of, or transported to or from the Project site. Hazardous substances associated with residential uses and churches are typically limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained without impacting the environment. Project operation would involve;the use of potentially hazardous materials (eg., solvents', cleaning agents, paints„fertilizers, and pesticides) typical of residenti d uses that, 'When used correctly and in compliance with existing lacus and regulations, would not resultin a significant hazard to residents, visitors, or workers in the vicinity of the Project site. No mnnufacturing, industrial, or other -uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the Project site. Typical use of household hazurdous materials (e.g., pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, cleaning products, and paints) would not gencrdlly result in the transport, disposal, or.release of hazardous materials of an amgum that would create a significant hazard to The public.,or environment Impacts ate considered less than significant, and rip mitigation is required. he Certified EIR also concluded that impacts o1 theApproved Project related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than signiFicant, Therefore, the.Revised'Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR, No new mitigation measures are required: b) The Revised Project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The Segerstroni High School is located directly west of the Project silt, across South Jaguar Way. Thorpe Elementary School is located adjacent to,and west of Segerstrom High School, approximately 0.25 mile t bra the Project site. Greenville Fundametital EleitietrtarySelio6I is located approxin ately 2OO. feet southwest of the Project site,. across the West MacArthur Boulevard/South Jaguar Way intersection. As noted above in Response 2.7;a, the Revised Project is notanticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities. Construction activities associated with the Revised Project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances`cils during heavy equipment operation for site excavation, grading, and const motion. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be in compliance Hath existing guverninem regulations. Use,,storage, disposal, or transport of large volumes of hazardous materials that could cause serious environmental damage in the event of an accident are not anticipated at the residences or church facilities. Although hazardous substances would be present and utilized at these residences and church facilities,such•substances are.generally present now in the cxisling developments surrounding the Project site, .ire typically found in small quantities, and can be cleaned up without affecting the environment. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous cmissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school -would be less than significant and no mitigation is.required. The Certified LIR also concluded that impacts of the Approved Projcct related to haiards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No now mitigation measures are required. c) A govenmtentn record search was perfuned onNtovember 30, 2016, whether deterraine if the Project site could pose a potential environmental concern la laic surrounding arca, and to identify P:ISF{Olffl-0LaAdcrv3unilAddindmN.dncz-07Ai/176 2-40 75B-89 6NWRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT ADDEN0061 'ARMSTRONG RANCN 98VISED-PAOJICT SEPTEMBER 9419 SANTA. ANA, .CALIFORNIA any environmental violations associated with activities conducted'at the Project site. According to the records search, the Project site is not included on my lists of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Govermiienf Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a signific im lmvtrd to the public or the environment (EDR; December`2016). No mitigation is required. The Certitied,EIR also concluded that the'Project site was not included on any lists of hazardous material sites. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. 0) The Project site.is`approximately 2 miles northeast of John Wayne Airport (SNA) and is within the Land Use -Planning Area`foi this airport.' According to the Citybf Santa Ana Gencral Plan, Land Use Elemenr(1993), the Project site is located within the FAA notification area. Because the Project site is within 20,000 feet( .79 miles) ofan airport, the Project site falls within the 20,000 -foot Federal Air.Regulations (F'AR) Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport.. The Revised Project would be required to comply with all FAA notification requirements and any FAA recommendations. Through compliance with this notification requirement and incorporation of FAA recommendations, the Revised Project would not result <in a safety hazard; for, People residing pr working in.the Project site area. No mitigation is required. The Cerlif ed EiR'also concluded that.the,Approvecf Project would result in less than sigmificani impacts related to, airport sufety hazardi with, compliance with FAA notification requirement. Therefore; the RevisedPrcjecCwould not result in new,signiricant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FIR.No new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Findings Related to hazards and Hazardous Materials: No New Significant Effects.Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications require major chaage to the Certilied EIR. Theproject, changes will not result in new significant environmental impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and there is no substantial incruise in the severity yf impacts described in the Certified EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major _Certified EiR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Hazards and Hazardous Materials that would require major changes to the Certified Elk. No New information Showing Greater:Sibriificant Effects than the Certified EIR, This Addendum has analyzed all available, relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the EIR was adopted, which would intricate that a new significant effect not reported in that document might occur. Rased on the inforination Rind analyses 1 Airport Land lige Commissions, Airport Environs. t'stSnOI'AtV'•,Addcndem•Ad&,idum.docx !d,NiGi!17x 2-41 75B-90 ED ZCT ENV IRONMENTAL INYA41'. ACFUAT,AUUYN UU%. A¢N]TAONO BANTA[ NA[B CALIFORNIA S gFI'CNOYA 1019 ab iyc there is.no substantial, new infornuinon indicating that there would be a newsignrfican.t;itppacG related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials requiring mljor, revisions to the Certifed EIR.' No New fnformation'Showing Ability to Rednee SignificuntEffeets in the Certtfied EM There. are no allumatives,lo the l rujeet or additional mitigation measures that.would substantially reduce one or more signiGcant,impacts pertaining to'Hazards and Hazardous Materials identiewd in and considered by the Certified EER: 1'.•$1101 W3Udacndiun'a\dJelxlum.docA uU9N5fI7a- 75B-91 2.42 h KVt20NMCNTAL IMrAGT mtrowr AUUU NUUH Ac4d T40NO AnNON 0.flvte Cl+rYOJY UY, "BEYTttM UCN l0li 9AN'rA."A. CALIFORNIA 2.9. HYDROLOGY AND NVATER..QUALITY Mould the.projeefz- vrw n[A2 ryn FuhrtamiM S[giancaal severe. 'Change Gam [impact Impm Prevloue Aualvsls (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischaTe ❑ requirements? ❑ (b) Substantially. dep[CIO grouadwalcr supplies or interfcrc substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquitir volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro-cxfstiag El❑ nearby wells would drop in level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pcnnits have been anlctll? ' (c) Substantially.alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,,, including through the alteration bf thecourse of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate oramouraofSurface runoff ❑ ❑ above pry- development condition rin..ri manner which would result in flooding i'on• orotysitc? .(d) Create or contribute nntorr water which world excecd the capacity of existing or planned storm waterdrainage systems or ❑ ❑ rovidc substantial: additional sources .or oltutcd runoff?? - (e) _Place housing within a 100 -year lined hazard area as mapped on a federal Flocxl Hazard Boundary• nr Flood Insumrice Rae Map lir ❑ ❑ other flood hazardddinratiun rna -? ,(f) Place within a l00 -year flood hazard area structureswhich would F-1 Elim de or redirect flood Flows? Analysis of Project Changes: a) Pollutants of concern during construction of the Revised Project include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and we(), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared. to existing conditions, In Addition, chemicals, liquid products, peholeunt.products (e.g., paints, solvents, and filets), and concrete -related waste ivay be spilled or leaked and have the potential to.be transported via storm dater runoff into receiving waters (i.e., the Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean). During construction of the church and residences, the total disturbed soil area would be approximately 14.5 acres. Because construction of the Revised Project would disturb greater than I 'acre of soil, the Project is subject to the requirements of the State -Neater Resources Control Board's, (SIVRCB's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for$tomi Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No.2010-0014- DNQand 201270006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). -Ihe Revised Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures GEC -S and GEo-6 from the 6ertifiaii'EIR, which requirecompliance with the Construction General I'ertnit and implementation of Erosion Control BMPs. `17he Construction General Permit requires preparation f:G101(OPA,ktnidurnlAJacndum.ducx .05!05![7. 75B-92 2-43 RNYIRONVENTAL ndTAPT. xIPURT AU VYNDUN ARSISTRONO. RANCID RRYI8L0 PROJRCT. RR ITEUM Sol? SANTA. ANA, CALIFORNIA ora Storm water P.oi management practice but not be limited iii, ana retain scotmem on of"construction debris 1 1Ps)-during construction ac(i on Control and 'Sediment Cc and Good Housekeeping B waste.into receiving waters.. best - d include; leaks; and The Revised Project would be required, to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The ConstructionGenertil Permit requires -prep ration of an SW11PP and implementation of construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPiI, during construction activities. Pollutants ofconcerti'during operation of the Revised Project include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, padiugcris Nuteriahiius),'pegticides, oil andgrease,'and tmsh'and debris. The southern - portion or the Project site 15,currenily pervious; therefore, the Rev- isedl Project would increase impervious surface area wouldi increase mnoff`from the Projectsite and increase pollutant loading to -downstream receiving waters, The Revised Project would comply with the requirements Orange County Municipal Separate ;Storm Sewer System (NI84) Permit and Drainage Area Managementrplan (DAMP). A Nater Quality Managyment Plan (NN•QMP) would be prcpumd for the Revise-a'Project consistent with the requirements of the Model WMP and Technical Guidance Document: The WQMP would si cciry the Site Design, Sourec Control;.and Low impact Developmenc,,(LID) BMPs tliat would be impletnented totargcl pollutants ofconeern'in "runoff from the Project site to reduce impacts to water quality during•operation. With implementation and maintenance ofpost-construction BiAr's that target pollutants of concern in stormwnterrmof, ,, and compliance with the requirements'of the MS4 Permit, operational impacts related to waste discharge requirement and water quality "standards would be less than significant:. In summary; with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO 5: and GEO-G, water quality impacts of the Revised Project would be reduced to a less than significant level. 'The Certified LIR also concluded that Mitigation'Mleasures GEO-5'and 080-6 would reduee water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, the lterased Project would not result hi new,significant impacts,heyond those identified in the Certified SIR. No new mitigation measures are required. b) Groundwater on the Project site was oneomitered'at depths ranging from 13 to 2'7 feel below ground surfice;(bgs) dluringboring-conducted as part of theTreliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report.p'repared forthc Certified EIR. Thertfon%, it is unlikely that groundwater' would be cii"comntercd during construction of the Revised Project and groundwater dewatering would not be required. The Revised Pnijectwould not require biround wafer extraction during operation, TheRevised.Projcet would increase impervious surface area on the Project site which would decrease infiltration. However, on-site soils have low,pemnuability and are not conducive to infiltrationor groundwater recharge in the existing condition: Therefore, the increas .in impervious surface area would not.substmrtially alter fnoundwatcrrecharge, in addition, the Project site is: not in a groundwater recharge area. For ihpse rcasons; impacts related to depletion of groundwater Rupp lies or interference with groundhvater re6argedunng conslrgotion operation of the ApprovedErojecr mould hc_ Ie9s than signiGoanl Anil no.iriitigation is required, The Certified 1 IR also concluded that the Approved Project would haw a less than signifwant impact ED groundwafer supplies and recharge. Therefore, the Revised Project would noCresult in new significant impacts beyond thoseidd'ntified in the Ccriifiui ETR. No new mitigation measures are required. p;5911016,,(,4'' NddendiimlAddundum,ducx QWUS.47u 75B-93 z-44 ENVIRON MEATAL IXPACT REP O nT AHQP.NII QX AQXSTµ ONO-µAF011 AGYf JE➢ PROJECT SHPTPMIlCA 9419 SANTA -ANA, CALIPOQKIA c) During construction activities„soil would be compacted -and drainage patterns would he temporarily altereH during grading and other construction'acngitics, and therewduJd bean increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Response 2.8.a and specified in Mitigation Measures GE0-5 and GP.6-6 from the Ccriificd EIR,,the Revised Project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit,' Vhich includes preparation of a SWPPP to implementation of Constructioth BNIPs to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with flooding. lmplementation of the Mitigation Measures GEC -S and GEC -6 would reduce construction impacts related to on- or off-site flooding to less than significant. The Revised Project would increase impervious surface on the Project site which would increase the volume of runoff train the Projectsite compared to existing conditions. The Revised Project would be required to comply with t1ie County MS4 Pennit and hydromodification requirements, which require jhat post-constnietion runoff be reduced to less than or equal to existing conditions. in addition; the Revised Project would comply with Mitigation Measures HYD -I through HYD -3' of the Certified EIR, which require drainage improvutnents to address' increases imstormwater runoff, Compliance with the County MS4 Pennit and hydromodification requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD =I through HYD -3 would reduce impacts related to stortndrain capacity and downstrearn flood nto a less than,significa' level. In'addition, any proposed RMPs and on-site storm drain. facilities include in the design of the Revised Proj= would be sized to accommodat stonn water runoff from the Project site so that on-site flooding would not occur. Finally, the Rev'ised'Pmject would not alter the course of a stream or river- in summary, inhpleinentalion of Miligaiion Measures GE0-5, GE6-6 and HYD113hroughliYD-3 would reduce construction operational impacts related to on-site or off-site flooding to a less than significant level. The Certified EiR also concluded that with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to alternation of drainagcpatters and flooding would be reduced to a less than signifcantlevel. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new signi.ftcant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EiR. No hew thtitigation measures are required. (1) Thu Revised Project would increase impervious surface areas on the Project Si(a, which would ifurcaw the volume of stoim water runoff generated from the. Project site. Increased volume and peak flow of runoff fromthe Projectsiie has the potential to exceed the capacity ofdow'nsfream slotmdrain systems. lleRevised Project would be required to comply with the County, MS4 Permit and hydromodification requirements, which require that post-conslruccioa.runoff be reduced Lo fess than or equal to existing conditions. In addition, the Revised Project would comply with 41htigntion Measures HYD -I through IIYD-3 of the Certified EIR, which require drainage improvements to address increases in stonnwater runoff. Compliance with the County 1094 Permit and hydromodification requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD -I lhniugh HYD -3 would reduce impacts related to stormdrain capacity to a less than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project wouldhave a less than significant impact related to the capacity of downstream stormdrains with implanentation of Mitigation HYD -1 through HYD-3.1lterefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond these identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. e) The Project site is not located in a 100 -year special flood hazard area. According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan, Public.Satety Element (1982, reformatted 2010), the Prgiccl site is. P.%SI IU 16414-Addendum'.Addendum.doex 0,7. l7„ 75B-94 2-45 YHVIRONNP.NTAL IHPACT AY.PORT ACLF.NDUU AP.PTENBtlA iff9 "' AiMSTFONC RANCH RiVISEn PRC]£CT SANTA�ANA. CALIFOUNIA Within a 500 -year florid hazard area. According to the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Irmurancc Rate Map,(FIRM) (Map No. p6059CO259J; Decetnber.3, 2004), die' Projuct site is located in Zone X (dotted an area protected 11)levees from l percent atmual chance flood (100 -year flood). lone X (06tted) is designated by FEMA as ani Otliei Flood Area which is not considered a Special Flood Ilazaid Aren'.liiipacts Mated to failgre of a levee are' discussed in Response 2:8J,below..There.fore, because:the Project is not located within a special flood hazard area designated by FEMA, the Revised Projeet.would not place housing within a 100 -year special flood hazard area. Therefore, no impacts related to placement of housing in a floodplain would occur and no mitigation is required. The Certified EIR also concludedthat the Approved Project was not located within a 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant: impacts, beyond those'identified in the.Certified EIR. No new mitigation measure: are required. :As stated in Rcaponse 2,8.g, a6ove;.ihe Project site is located in Zone X (dotted), an area protected by levees front -I percent annual, chance flood (100 -year flood). Zone X (dotted) is designated by FEMA as an Other Flood Area and is notconsidered it Special Flood Hazard Area. Impacts related to failure of a levee are discussed in"Response 2.8.i, below. Because the Project is not located within a special flood hazard area designated by FEMA,the Revised Project would not place structures within n 100=year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect- Card flows. Tlne'refore, no impacts related.to.placegient of structures in a 100 -year floodplain would occur and no mitigatign is required. The Certified EIR' also concluded that the Approved Project was not located within a 100 -year tloodpinin. Thereforc, the Revised Project would not result in new sibmificant impacts beyond those identifled in (hu Certified MR. No new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Eased on the analysis and information above, Mitigation MeasuresilYD-1 through HYD -3 included in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised,Praject. IIYD-1 All proposed drainage hnprovernents,,including project catch basins; shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the" standards set by the City of Santa Ana and by the Orange Cqunty Flood Control District. Plans for grading; drainage, and erosion control shall be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance or grading permits. IIYD-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant record a drainage easement along the northern Raitt Street driveway, betyr'een:Alton Avenue. and the northern catch basin. IIYD-3 Prior to issuance of building pennies a storm drain easement shall be recorded between the northern catch basin and MacArthur Boulevard, PdS11DIF.a 1'AS1c�a-lnm'AdcL�ndain,Ancr afAA9'a. I LI 75B-95 2-46 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RP.PORT ADDENDUM ARMSTRONG RANCH -REVISED PROJECT SPPTELSRR 5017 SANTA'%NA. CALIFORNIA Findings Related to Hydrology and.Water Quality: No New Significant Rffects Requiring Major Certified-EIR Revisions. Based on tite foregoing- analysis'and infonnatipn,'thcrc is no evidence that Project modifications requirea major change -to the Certified EiR. The.Project,changes will not result in new sl&nificant environmental impacts related to Hydrology and Mater Quality, and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the Certified MR. No Substantial Change'!it Circumstances Requiring Maibr Ci rtified EIH Revisions: There is no information in the.record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantiafchanges in circumstancesspertaining to,Flydrology and Water Quality that Would require major changes to the Certified EIR. No New Information Sbowing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EIM'fhis Addendum has analyzed all availablerelevant information to determine whether there is new information thatt was,not available at the time the F.rR wits adopted, which would indicate that a new significant effect not reported in that d&umitiu night occur. Based on the infonitation and analysts above,.there is nq snbstantial.new uifonnation indicating that there would be a new significanTitnpact related to,Hydtplogyand Nater Quality requiring major reeiaions to the CeLifed'EIR: No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant IYfects in theCertified EiR. Them are no altematives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to hydrology and Nater Quality identified in and considered by the Certified EIR. Nsfiol!>.11'>1Alcud;ImlArlAcnAinn.dnn ;d7910V[ 7;; 75B-96 2-47 ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT-REPORr AC CENDUM AkMSTRONO RANCH REV'eEO PROJECT EEPTEMEER IQL7 MAN'I'A AICAs CALIFORNIA 2,10 LANDU5E/F.LANNING ' N.W, (CRsRWrnntlal slgdiaetnl More $drre Cfisnye.rrmo Would the project: LRpact" Impact, Ivok..vA..Iy�.F of an agcney'+vnh lurkdiction over the t>rolecl (inclniling. but not tunilLd to fill general plan plannedcommunity; or zoning El 1:1ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitgaring'an environmental effect^ (c) Conflict wiih any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural I ❑" ❑ Analysis of Project Changes: a) 'the.Project site is bound by Alton' Avenue to the north, residential uses to the cast (Armstrong Ranch) MacArthur Boulevard to the. south, and Jaguar Way to the we,% in its existing condition_; the northern portion of the Project site is developed with,a smell sanctuary (.5 I associated with the Christ Our Savior Catholic'Cliurchand a parking lot that serves the Church; the southerii. portion of the'Project,site is vacant. The Revised Project includes the development of42.single-family residential units on a curr ntly undeveloped portion of the site. hnplementation of the Revised Project would not change the existing sitceonfiguralion within the Project site or within the local area, icor would it change the existing street layout. The Revised Prgjeet proposes an access driveway from the Jaguar Way cul- de-sac, utilization of the existing south leg of the JaguarWiy116ton Avenue'intersection, and a' right hr'tight-ouCdrivewa)+ ori Alton Avenue. Therefore;'[lne Revised Project would not result in the physical division of airy bstablished community, and no mitigation is required. The Revised Project would not result in new siionificimt itnpacts beyond tliose identified in the Certified FIR: r4. view iiinigntion measures are r'e%ircd:: b) The Projecrsite is within the Cityof Santa Ana.'The main documents" guiding development and regulating land uses in the City of Santa Ana are the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance., As previously stated; the Project site'is designated 1.11-7 in the Gencral Plan, and is zoned SU -4 on the City's Zoning Map. General Plnn.The City of Santa Anna Geticral Plan is the Cily's most Fundamental planning' document. Tlie General Plan is a comprehensive plan in,compr6cnsivc plan intended to guide the physical development of the City and serves is a blueprint for future growth and development: As a blueprint for the "future, the plan contains policis and programs' designed to prolvide decision -makers with a solid, basis for decisions.related to land use and development. The Revised Project would develop a new Church facility oil ail existing Church site; which would replace the existing'oti-site use yilh [lie same usp. Tbe`Revised Protcct'wouldi also develop law -density residential uses on the southern portion of the' Project site, which would tie consistent with the site's 1,R-7 General Plan designation as well as the surrounding residential uses. Because the Revised Project is consistent • with the existing use and the General Plan land use designation for the site, the Revised Project would also be Consistent with applicable goals and policies Y:'SIIUI(rP1't1drlrnllum`�+1ddrndum.docx !!77ii)iJl i» 75B-97 2-48 RNVIRONMP. NTAL IMCAII T RRRORT AOORNDOM ARMSTRONG RANCH 0.CVI9¢D,TROJ¢.G7 %RPTRMRLR 1111 - SANTA ANA. GALITOANIA' outlined in the City's General Plamreiated to residential development. The Certified EIR also concluded altar; the Approved Project would be compatible iwith surrounding uses, which include lone- andimotiemte-densityresidential developments. No new mitigation trieasures are required. Zonhtg Ordinance. The;Citv's Zoning Ordinance is the primary impleinetifatio i tool for its General Plan Land Use Element and the goals and policies contained therein. its such, the Zoning Mapmustbe consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. The Land Use Mapindicates the general location and extent of future land use in the City. The Zoning Ordinance, which includes the Zoning Map, contains more detailed information about permitted land uses, building intensities, and required development standards. The current zoning district on the'1'roject site is SD4. The Revised Project would develop a new Church facility on an' existing Chu reLsLite; wIhich would replace the existing on-site'use with the samense. Thcxcsidential component df the Revised Project would be consistent with allowable uses within SD -4, which allows for crop agriculture and single-family residential uses. SD -4 is a precise plan, adopted by ordinance that provides the means for tine regulation of buildings, strrcrures; and uses of land in order to facilitate the implementation of the General Plan.17he regulations of SD -4 are intended,to'gutde land use on the site while ensuring corn pliance with the: provisions of tile Municipal Code: Therefore, the Revised Projectivould result.in less than significant impacts with respect to inconsistcneies with the City's Zoning Ordinance.'l'he Revised Project will require an amendment to 9134 to allow ror.development of a,gundI lot subdtvisioa. "Che only other discretionary:approval identi tied by the City that would be required for die project is.a tentative tract map. Per the reasons outlined above, the Revised Project would be consistent with. applicable documents regulating land use on the Project site, and no mitigation is required, The Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the C_enifed EiR_ No new mitigation measures are:regitired. C) The Project site is not located within the Orange County. Central -Coastal Natural Coiiiniunities Conservation P1aalHabital Conservation flan (NCCP/HCP). lberefore, there are no adopted I1CP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation -plans that apply to the Project site and the Revised Project would not conflict with the NCCP orIICP and no- mitigation omitigation is required. Therefore; the Revised Project would not result in new significant hupacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. findings Related to Land Use and Planning: No New Significant Effects Requiring.Major Certified EIR Revisions. Based on tate foregoing analysis and information, there is no cVidence that project modifications require a major change to the Certified EIR_ The project changes will act result in new significant environmental impacts related to P:'.SHOIfi6d+Aik]enitumLldt�eadnm.elGc'x 49:0513 i,, 75B-98 2-49 RNVICONYRNTAL. IMPAJ'r REiOx]7ADDEND'JIA ARMSTRONG CANON: MIVIRF.D_ PROJROT. SEPTSASER 3.12, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Land.Usc and Planning, and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the Certified OR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major Certified GIR ReAsions. There is no in in the record or otherwise adailable.that indicates ihatthere are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Land Use and Planning that would require major changes to the Certified E,IR. No New Information Show ing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified, EIR. This Addendum has analyced'all available relevant information to determine whether theie.is new information that was not'available at the tine the EIR was adopted, which would indicate that anew significant effect not reported in that document might.occur. Based on the infomiation'and'analyses above, there is aio.substantial new information indicating that there would be a new, significant impact related.to i.and UNQ and Planning requiring major revisions to.the Certified BIR. No New In formatima'Sbowing Ability to Reduce Significant'kffects in the Certified EIR. There are no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would, substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Land Use and Planning idenfified'in ind considered by the Certified LI&: N,A1ID1&A%Add rid anAAddmium,doex 491091?,, 75B-99 9.4 VICONN6Niµ.I51YA4t Y[YopT Aop[NDVM 96 YTP.N SCR i41T" - - .Ap NS4R DNC RANCH RRVSpp -Ypo NC'r' SANTA ANA. GALE, OMNIA 2.11 NITNERAL. RESOURCES New More NO su6r[aut at fY0lilP (1. CP Si¢nlaoipi .'sole" chauge'from -ImpaYl - Impnir NIc ionsAnldi4ls ed on "a lnc5. ganeial plan, spec fie I ❑ . ❑ ®.. Analysis of Projeef Changes: a) According to die Ciiy'of Santa Aria Cencral Plan, land Use Element(1:998), there are no mineral extraction activates eurrentiv.occutrhig within the City. In addition, according to the Land Use Element, there are no.Significant 1vlincral,Agt,�rcgate Resource Areas (SrVlizA) Designations. Therefore,,the Revised Project would not impact known mineral resources and iio mitigation is required. 'I'lre Certified ElWalsoxoncluded that the Approwd Project voitld not result in impacts to tnineral resources because no mineral resources are pregeit:on the Projccl site that are considered Wally, orregionally important. Therefore, the Revised:'Proic& would not result lnnew significant, iinpacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR and no new mitigation measurus are required. Mitigation Measures:11 No mitigation is required.; Findings Related to Mineral Resources: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified FIR ,Revisions, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence'that project modifications require a major change to the Certified E1R. The project changesmi11 not result in new significant environmental impacts related to Mineral Resources, and there_ is substantial increase in the severity of impacts dcsia bed in the Certified EIR. No Substantial Change in _Circumstances Requiring Major Certified -FIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Mineral Resources that would require major changes to the,Certified EIR.; No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EiR. This Addendum has analyzed all `available relevantiufor n ition In dcLiirminc whether there is new information that was not available at thetimedie BIR was adopted, -which would indicate th'afa new sigmificant effect not reported in thatdocuinent might occur. Based on the information itIad itnalyses abtiVe, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact related to IOineraf Resources requiringtnajor revisions to the Certil (A EiR. P(S41(Q167d'ylddentlumiAdJ�n�Innvc4cA��LlHlU5r7 �a� 75B-100 2-5 t UNVIRONMCN'r AL IMI'.AU'f RIFORr AUUSNOON. ARNSTRUNO RANU1128V11R4 FROJ2 U1' 9IFT9UBLR iPlf SANTA ANAs 6ALIVOLN1A No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant EtTects in the Certified FTR. Thcre are no altcrnkivcs to the Prujcct or additional -mitigation measures that would substuntiallyreducc one or more sigmifuiint impacts pertaining to Mineral Resources identified in and cbnsiderud by the Certified EIR. 1'SSI Ie16U3b\rklrmlrml;Iddcndum.Jues WRIDSi lin 75B-101 2-52 RN,IRONMeN'I'.AL WFAUT.YRPURT AHUe NUUM ARYSTRONU-RANCH ReVIaRU panlet szrruu11RR inn SANTA ANA, CALIYURNIA 2:12` `IOISE New No subumatlal Would the project resirlt in; signifimm NI.,r S—twre Cbnuge from mq,ua. IMPnrl V,evw. Anny.is (a). Exposure of persons to orgeneiation oraokelevels in exceas of standards established in the local geiieraiPlan or noise o6flin2iice, ❑ ❑ oral licablestandankofothera cncicsl (b) Exposure of personsto or generation ofexcessivcgroundborne oraroundborne noise levels? ED Elvibration (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing wit}tout the proimt? ❑ ❑ (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Peojecl vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ project? (e) For a project located within'an airport land use'plan or, where sudi a plan has not been a(iopted,- ,within two miles ofapublic airport or use airport, would the project expilse people residing or. 0 - 1:1public workin -in ilio ra'c�:i arca to ezeu�vsive noise levels2. Analysis of Project Changes; a) Two types orshort Cerin noise impacts could occur duringcomstntction of the Revised Project. First, the construction crewoi» mutes and lhu transport of construction t quipment and materials to the site foi the Revised Project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the Project site. The second type of short-term nowise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving on the Project site. It is anticipated that noise impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors would be. potentially significant. The Revised Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure NOH from the Certified MR, which requires compliance with the City's noise ordinance, muffling ofcoastruction equipment, coordinationwith neighbors W resolve noise complaints, and eohstntction of a temporary noise barrier around rite [ roject site. 1mPlemcntatioh of Mitigation' Measure NOl-t would reduce noise impacts during construction of the Revised Project to it loss than significant.level. Long-term noise from the Rcvised.Project would include on-site and off-site noise impacts from Project -related traffic on roadways adjacent to the Project site,noise from on-site mechanical equipment, and noise from on -silo human aclNiLy. A substrimiat noise impact would occur if the Revised Project increased noise levels increase by 3 A -weighted decibels (dBA) or more, The Approved Project found that trafhc noise would increascmoise levels by 1.1 dBA which is substantially below the noisc.threshold ofan increase of 3.0 dBA, which is barely perceptible to the human car. As discussed in Section 2.15, Transportation/traffic, the Revised Project would generate fewer trartic trips compared to the land uses proposed for the Approved Project; therefore; trafficnoisc impacts of the Revisal Project would be less than the Approved Project and would therefore be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the residential units would include air conditioning acid heating units.'llie mechanical equipment for heating and air would be shielded from the adjacent homes and'school and would not be anticipated to exceed City noise standards. Similar to the Approved Project, on site noise from human activity such as people talkiti„ doors shimming, tires squealing, heck deliveries; landscape maintenance, 1`aS I10160dL\J�I�durnlAdllrndum.wrs .•VIiQS!I T 75B-102 2-53 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, REPORT ADDENDUM ARMJTR0V U,RANQN REVteED. PROJECT 5UFT1SU6t1 EGIT - 9ANTAANA, dALIrD RNIA equipment operation, stereos, atid'dornestic; animals. Noise levels associated with these "noise sources would be nticipated to average between 45 and 5.5:dBA which would bc.considered less than srgnifrcatit. In sumnr iry; impleinentatioa-of Mitigation Mcasure'14OT=1 wouldreduce noise impacts of the Revised Project -to a less than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI=I would reduce noise impacts during construction of the Approved Project to a less than significant level and.tl at long-Wrtn noise impacts would be lass than significant; Therefore, the Revised Project would,not result in new sigh ficant impacts beyond those.identified.in the"Certified FIR. No new mitigationmeasuresarcrcquircd., b) Vibration refers to grotritdborne notse and perceptible motion,. Groundbomc Nibritton is,ultnost exclusively a concern inside buildings.and:is rarely perceived as,a problem outdoors where the.. motion maybe discernible, Typical sourees.of groundbome vibration arc construction activities associated with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment and occasional traffic oil rough roads. When roadways'are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. it is assumed for ,most projects that the;roadway surface will be smooth gtrough that groundborric. vibration from street.traf .c will notexceed the impact criteria; hpwe�%er,'conslruc ioit'of the Project could iesult in-gioundboine'viliration that could be perceptible and An noyitig'to,resin_ ential uses located ca"sl of lticPrglecf site. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines show that a vibration level of upto lot vibration velocity.in decibels (VdB) (an equivalent to 0.5 inch per second [hiclilsec], in PPV) 1 A (F 2006)' is considered safe for buildings consisting 6Crcinforcedconcrete, steel, or timber (no; ,plaster), and would not result in, any construction vibration damage. For a nonengineered timber and masonrybutldiiug,'the construction vibration damagc;cnter on is 94 Vd6 (0.2 hiclvsec in Irl V). The site of the reduced church facility aiid additional:A2 residential homes is loi a1cd approximately 25 feet from the adjacent residential land uses hr the cast (umstructed as part of the. Approved Project). Bulldozersandother heavy -tracked construction equipment that would be expected to be used on the Project site'generate approxtnlately87 VdB of groundhonte vibration when measured at25-feet; which is below'the FTA damage criteria of l02 Vila, based on jhe Trains tt Adige and 11bration lntpgct Assr ssrnem guidelines. At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residences and worker, butwould not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any signi6ca nt effects on outdoor aetivities. The greatest -levels of vibration arc Anticipated to occur during thosfte preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels and no pile driving is expected to occur. Therefore,.the project is ltotexpected to result in new or worsening vibration impacts. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FIR. No new,mitigation measures are required. c) A substantial permanent increase would occur if the Revised Project would caw,§c noise levels io increase bv'3'dBA or,rhore. As discussed in Response 2.1 r.a neither the long-term.traffic nor stationary noise sources would cause an increase in ambient noise levels of more than.3 JIBA, at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Projectsite, thus the impact would be less than significant 1"?SIIUIN,H1:1SirndwnL4ddendum.dpcx na4+I1�JfJn 75B-103 2-54 RNV] RO HYENTALJ N PACT R¢PORT ADDRNDDY 9¢PTP.YAYY-5019 AQS(STRONC RANCH .YE VI$¢D PROJECT SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA and tw.mitigation is required. The Certified EIR also conchided that long-term noise impacts for the Approved Project would be less than "significant. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new 'significant impaets:beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. d) As discussed in Response 2.1 La, above, implementation of the Revised Project would include construction activities that would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project site vicinity above levels existing without the Project, but would no longer occur once construction is completed. The Revised Project would be required to comply- with Mitigation pleasure NOI-I "from the Certified EIR, which requires compliance with the'City's noise ordiaiance,;ntitlling of construction equipment, coordination with neighbors to resolve noise complaints, and construction of a temporary noise barrier around the'Projectsite. Implementation of Mitigation Measure-NOI-1 would reduce noise impacts during construction of the Revised Project to a less than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded'that implementation of Iviftigation.Measure N01-1 would reduce noise impacts during construction of the Approved project to a less than significant level.'fherefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new initigation measures are required. e) The Project siteis approximately 2 miles northeast of John Wayne Airport (SNA) and is within the Land Use Planning Arca for this;airport.a Thu Project site is approximately 13 milCs,outsidc' .of the 66 dBA noise contours of this airport'; therefore, the noise -related impact due to airport activities would be less than siemiftcant and no mitigation is required, -The CertifiedEiR also Found that the Project site is not located within the airport contours. Therefore,, the Revised Project would not rusult in new signifearrt impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EiR. No new mitigation measures are required.. Mitigation Measures: Based on the analysis and information above, Mitigation Measure NO -1 included in the Certified EIR for the Approved'Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. NO -1 'llie project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices • Outdoor construction work mi the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p,m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur.on Sundays.or federal holidays • All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled I Airport Land Usc Commissions,. Airport Epvhohs, - John Wayne Airpon 2015 Annual 60.65, 70, and 75 CNEL noise Contours ri15H01r:Ra'AddrnduniWadnRacm.BxY eaa9ra5ll^ 75B-104 2•SS RNVI3ONMUNTAL I MPAUT-N3PCk'I. AD DENDVM AKM2TiON5 HAN011 KUVI3UU PROJECT SEPTEMBER. 2117 SANTA ANA, CALI}C%NIA • All stationary no generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses Machinery, including muton, shall be tunted off when,hothiatse. Mobile-equioment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences • Neighbors (including the proposed high school) within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule to writing, prior to constriction; the project sponsor shall designate.a "disturbance coordinator' who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who,may be cinployee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; a telephone.numbcr of the noise disturbance:caordinator shall be: conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent. to neighbors adjacent to the site. Temporary noise barriers shalt be installed between the proposed church and adjacent noise sensitive land uses. These noise barriers may iriclude the. use of leaded blankets and/or layers of plywood, Barriers shall beat least ten feet in height- in the event the; construction noise is intrusive on the local residents, the project applicant iihatl raise the height and%or thickness of temporary noise harriers. Findings Related lo.Noise: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified EM Revisions. Based -on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidL.ence that project: modifications require a major change to the Certilied EIR. The project changes will not resultin:new significant envirmnterital impacts related to Noise, and there is no "substantial increase in the severity of impacts.described in the Certified EIR. No Substantial Chitage in Circiimstahces Requiring Major Certified F.IR Revisions. There is no irifonnation in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circutnstances.pertaining to Noise that µmulti require major changes to the Certified EIR. No New information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified CIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to detennine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the EIR was adopted, which would indicate that a new significant effect not repoted in that document might occur. Based o» the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that' there would be a new significant impact Belated to Noise requiring major revisions'to the Certified FIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects In the Certified Ell. There are no alternatives to the Project or additional uutigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Noise idenli fled inand considered by the Certified FIR. Yiln015Ui4\adenJum•.,1JdenJum.J.:cx AR, -(Of N 75B-105 2-5fi .RNV[IIONMENTAL IMPAnT. REPORT ADDZND.VM AIItifTHONO pANCM'BEV1226 PADUOT '39VTEMBRR 2117. - - ]ANTA. ANA:VAL1rORNIA 2.13 POPULATION ANM HOUSING'. NO. ma2c uasnhuHdttA ajaina.it setiri Change ream W014 the Pra ed Inipea Impact I'fevlous"Anfltd6 ,(e). Induce substantial pypulattori-dmwth in an area, eilherdirectly (for example, fiy proposing view homes ahtl businesses) or 1-1 El -® `indirectly (for example, through extension vt roads orother inrraiuucture)?. (b) Displace substantial numhers of existing housing, necessirating the Q construction ofreylacenie tliousin-elSewllere? `(c) - DiEl 0 splacesuhsiantial numbers of people, neeLssitating lite O construction era laceinenthousin elsewhere? Analysis of Project.Changes:. A) The Approved Pro ,(ect;proposed 1561 single-family detachet1restdeniial units (which.were. constractcd,agd are not'occupied) The Certified EiR estimated that the Approved Pruject would inorcase population by716 persons (based on 4:53 persons per ltouschold), which.reprtscttted a 0:2`uerccnt increase in aobulation. The Revised Projeet inchides an addit11 ional 42 single family P.loh, 2(114-262 1 Housing Element Update, I to eiftwnt average houscliold size in the ,City is 4.4 persons. Based on the City's current avemgc household size; the Rcviscd Protect w6uld introduce 18,51 'persons into the Project site compared to the Approved ,Proleect.2 ,nii addition Of 1851new residents would be approximately 0:055 percent of the City's, population of 33412.17 in 2016, and 0.054 percent,oGlhc City.s projected population.of 343,100, in 2020..The increase in population resulting from the Revised Project isnot considered sigmiftcant because it.only comprises a small portion (less thi n I percent) of the total population of the City and does not wpresent a. substantial increase in population: Additionally, the Rei•ised Pro)ect:is surrounded by urban' -uses, ritcliiding single-fnthily residential uses to the north,,easi, and south and.educationiil and recreational uses to the east.11he Revised Project docs not propose .to expand surrounding utlhty'infrasttructure in the Project vicinity: 171eref ire , the Revised Project would not directly orindkeetly induce population growth thriiugh the extedsinn of roads or other inliashvcture. Therefore, potential impacts related to substantial inducelnerij,of population gowth, either directly or indirectly; would be less than sioillwant, and he mitigation'is required; The Certified EIR also conded that impacts of the Approval Project related to population growth would be :less than sigrnificant..Therefore,*llle Revised Proiva would' not result'iti new significant itnpacts beyond those'identit ed in the Ccaifted EIR. Nu new mitigation measures arc required 1 42 residences x.4.4 person,.hesidence - 184:8: 1'he 156 single -gamily residential units have been coo4ructdd; lhaefore, iT is, assume) that the population associated wiihthese households are accounted for incurrent population esiiinates. 3 .United States, Census Bureau, Quick Facts. ern Califoroia.f.ssociation of (imei-nmenls, 2016.2040'UNSCS Demographic & Growth Forecasts. 2016. n:ISIIOtG'hAW.4lendumlr\dil�ndum.:,:cx �.CFIrUir 17�. 75B-106 2-57 ARNSTYO NO RANCH RZVISRR-YROJECT RNY[RONSRNTAL [ xrAOT RP.TORT AOPSNb OY SANt, ANA, CALIFORNIA RRPTPYPCR 101, nd b) The northern porhon-of the Projcctsite is developed with a small sanctuary and a parking to housing thdgoutliern portion is undeveloped. No housing'units are located on the Projcctsite, and Housing displacement impacts would not occur as a, result of Project implementation. In addition; the Revised Projecl includes an tdditional42 single fancily residential units "compared to the -Approved.l'rgjeet. Because thu Revised'Projcctwoold nirt displaw.housint and includes more housing than approved in the Certified EiR, the Revised Project would not necessitate .construction of replacement housing elsedhere and no mitigation is required. THc Certified EIR also concluder) that the Approved Project would not result in impacts related to displacement or liousing.'1'lrercfore,,the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond [hose. identified in the Certified FIR. Nlo new mitigation measures are required. c) The northern portion of the Project site is developed with a small sanctuary and a parking lot and the southern portion is undeveloped. No housing umts.gr other forms of temporary housing are located on the project site, raid no people would be displaced as a result"of the Revised Project. In addition, the Revised Project includes an additional 42 single family residential units compared to the Approved Project. Because the project would not displace people, the Ri;viscd Project would riot necessitate construction of.replacement housing elsewhere and no in gattoit is require). The Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project would not result in impacts, relined to displacement of people..Tllerefore; the Revised Projecrwould not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required.. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Findings Related to Population andilousin— No New Significant Effects Requiring lajor'Certified EIR Ilevislons. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications require'a major change to the Certified EIR. The project changes will not result in new significanLetivironmental,impacts related to Population and Housing, and there is no substantial increase ill the severity of impacts described in the Certified EiR. No Substantial Changc:in Circumstances Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or othenvise'available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Population and Housing that would require major changes to the Certified EIR. No New Information Showing Crester Significant Effects than the Certified LIR. This Addendum has analyzed all "available relevant infomuuion to determine whether there is new' information that was hot available atthe time die E1R.was ndoptLdl which would indicate that a new significant effect not reported in that document might occur• Based on the information and analyses: above, there is nit substantial new inforimilipn indicating that there would be a new significant impact related to Population and Housing requiting major revisions to the Certified EIR. Pi:511016041Addcndlinet. <0.tmdum.d"eA u09.'HS ',P 75B-107 2-58 CNVIRONMZNTAL INTACT REPORT Au DINUUA. AYY9T6O1fp RAN OH.R¢YO ED.PII pjP.CT b CPTEAIRLA'99 V: SANTA ANA,, CAI.IPORNIA ho_Nev Information ShO)vingAbility to Reduce Significant Effects iii the Certified CIR.,There ae np i114ern�ttYcs w the Project or additional mitigauan measure+ that would §ubstantialiy reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Population and Housing identified id Bind considered by the Certified EIR, 1'::Sf1U15U4'v\ddmdumMdAemfum.duuY rtl*bUs?I?,. 75B-108 2-59 6NYJXONMGNTAL IMPAOS REPORT ADDENDUM ARMATRONG AAU411R8VIlaU PDOJRCT 31FTCMDER 311: SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA. 2.14 PUBLIC: SERVICES New Mare No SuLitmthl slgldaroRt Severe chnD;Ctronr Would Me project: Impart I.P110 A.A N. (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impact's associated with the provision of or need for new or physically all crud govcrrnnental frreilitivs, the construc(i(;i-of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain. acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance: objectives for any of the public wrvievs: i) Fire' Protection? ❑ ❑ ii)Police Protection? -N iii Schools? u iv) Narks? ❑ ❑ v Other public facilities? Analysis of Project. Chan. -es: a) (i) The Revised Project is a.residential community, which would increase the number of on-site ttisitors and personnel, however, tate addition of 42 single family residential units as a result of the proicot would result,in' a stnall increase in demand for fire protection services, particularly as compared to the I56 residential units and church uses included as part of the Approved Project. The increase in demand would no't iubstatitially affect level of service ratios or response times of fire: protection services. No new. or altered fire facilitie's would be required to accommodate -the Revised pr9ject.'1'1te Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project -would notsubstantially affect level of service ratios for ft -o protection and would not increase response times. Therefore, the Revised Project would not resuh in new significantintpacts beyond those identified in the Certified MR. No new mitigation measures are required. (ii) As previously stated in Section 2,12, Population and Housing, the Revised Project would introduce 1$5 pci5ons into the.Pr6jeef site compared to the Approved Project. When compared to'the Approved Project and the City's 2016 population of 334,217 and projected population of 343,100 in 2020, the Reviscd Project would result in a small increase in demand for police protection services which would not substantially affect police level of service ratios or response times. The Certified FIR also concluded that the Approved Project would not substuraiidly affoet level orservice ratios, that response times would not measurably increase, and that City Police staff would be sufficient to respond to the needs of the Approved Project. The Revised Project would not result in naw significant impacts beyond those' identified in the Certified FIR. No new mitigation measures are required. (iii) The Revised Project would restill in the dcvclopment,'61742 single family residential units. Using the generation rule of 0.995 students per dwelling unit as identified in the Certified EIR, the Revised Project would result in the addition of approximately 42 students into the Santa Ann Unified School District (SAUS17). Comparatively, the Certified FIR concluded that the 156 residences included us part of the Approved Project would have resulted in the addition of 155 students to'the.SAUSD. The Certifled EIR determined that because the SAUSD ivas already over -crowded, the Approved Project's impacts relined to the demand on fast W IEU4'mlddctutumSAddcndum.Jucr m:H,VS!I: h 75B-109 2-60 rNv1RoNuL`NTAL cwxa r ALYORT ADOL9DUU AYNO"rao NORANUII RXV15XV PROI6CT' 8LPTEMBER 1117 SANTA ANA. OALITOAN[A existing school facilities would be potentially signifrcant.'llierefore, the Approved Project required the Applicant to pay school impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to theappropriate school district (Mitigation Measure PS -1). While the Revised Project's increase in school children into the SAUSU would result in a decreased demand on school facilities as compared to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would also be required to comply with Mitigation Measure PS -1 whieh`would reduce impacts to schools to less than significant. The Revised Project would not resultin"new sibmificant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified! HIR. No new mitigation measures are required.. (iv) According tgthe City's General Plan Open Space, harks, ,ind Recreation Element (1982), the City has appioxunately 400 acres°of public park and recreation ftacilities. The City maintains a ratio and has adopted a standard of approximately two acres of openspace per 1;000 residents.'flre addition of approximately 135 residents.generated-by the Revised Project could incrementally increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. Using the City's ratio of two acres per 1,000 residents, theadditional residents would require 0.37 acres of parkland, which is 0.09 percent of existing park area in the City: Id addition, Chapter 341 Article 8'of the City's Municipal'.Codewas adopted to implement the provision§, of the Quimf y Act (Slate of California Planning and Zoning Law, Section 66477), which allows_ the- lcatslativcb6dyof a city to require the dedication or land,ror park facilities ur d+or the payment of in lieu fees for park and recreational purpn es'as a condition to the for a Final tract map or parcel map for, certain subdivisions. The Revised Project would be subject to the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in -lieu fees for park and recreational purposes. The Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34-2041 Requirements, states that the subdivider may be required to dedicate land for park- and recreational purposes at the time of approval of a tinal subdivision map. The Ceriftied ELR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less significant impacts with respect to park -facilities through die provision of onsite private space and the payment of park dedication fees. The Revised Project would be, required to comply width Mitigation Measure PS -2, as outlined in the Certified Ella to ensure the payment of parkland fees to reduce impacts associated with increased demands on park facilities to less than significant. The Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EiR. No new mitigation HICUSUreS are required, ('v) Electricity. The Certified SIR concluded that the Approved Project's demand for electricity would be approximately 1.8 million Kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year based on a generation rate of 5,626.50 kWlilunitiyear for residential uses and 10:40 kWhlsquare feevyvar for church uses.'llie Revised Project includes the development of 42 single-family dwelling units on the Project site and a reduction is square footage of the church campus. Using the same generation rite provided in the Certified SIR, the Revised Project would result in an annual electricity demand of 236;313 kWh. The Certified SIR concluded that the Approved Project's electricity demand would be within the context of the overall electric demand within Southern California and the State, and would neither result in;a substantial increase in demands beyond available supply, nor require the expansion of power facilities. It is assumed that the Revised Prgject would incorlidrate Title 24/Catifomia Green Building Cpdc - re( juiru-ment to ensure that the Revised Project wbuld not result in inef iciew, wasicrul and/or unnecessary.consumptionof electricity: Compliance with Title 24/California Green Building Code requirements would reduce impacts to electricity to less than significant. Therefore, the 1':'inU160SL4ddmJ,un'AdJclxtumLU�1 uUYNi:17+. 2-61 75B-110 a MV I kONMTNTAL IMI'AOr %FP09T AD Oa NONM Ak]ISTko NC RANCIr YEvt52O Pk Otk CT SANTA ANA', CALIYOAHIA 86Y'raMMZK SOLI Rcvfsui Projeti would not result in nesv significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FIR. No new mitigation measuresare required, Natural Gas: The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would connect to existing gas pipelines serving lhe-Projact site and that gas scrdicc could be adequately provided to the Project site based on existing supply. The Revised Project includes the development of42 single-familydwclling units on the Project site and a reduction is square footage of the church campus. Natural Gas supplies in California are not constrained and it is assumed that the Revised Projct would incorporate Title 24.!California Green Building Code requirement to ensure that the Rcyised Project would noi'resultin inetficient,:wasteful mmd!'or unneecssaryconsumption Of natural gas. Compliance with Title 24(CaliforniaGreen Building Code requirements would reduce impacts to natural gas to less than significant. The Revised Prcjaa would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FiR: No new mitigation measures are required. Telephone. The Certified EiR cuncluded that Pacific Bell would be able to accommodate the ApprovW,Project's demand for telephone and interact scryjees and that the Approved Project would not adversely affect facilities or senticc. Consequently, the Certified EIR determined that telephone utilities would not exceed available capacity. The Revised Project includes the developriuent ot'42 single-family residential units and would be significantly smaller than the Approved Project. The Project site islocated in an area currently served by all utilities-, it assumed that a major.telephone carrier would be able to provide telephone service to the residential units and to continue to provide telephone service to the church campus. Therefore, impacts related to telephone service would be less. than significant. The Revised Project,would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR: No new fiiitigation nfeastu6s are required; Libraries. 11ie City is served by the City's Public Library System. The closest library within the Santa tltia Public Librate System, to the Project site is the Newhope Library located at 26 Civic Center Plaza. The Newfiopc Library currently includes a, computer lab available to adults and high school students, a youth computer center, a space for teens; and book materials. As discussed above, development of the Revised Prt?jectwould result in an increase of an estimated 185 new residents. Although implementation ofthe Revised Project would causeun incremental increase in demand for library facilities; this increase would be minimal, and impacts to library facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required, Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified-EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. l41idgation Measures: Based on the analysis and information above, Mitigation Measures PS -1 and PS -2 included in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. However, these measures have been revised as follows to reflect current requirements. 'These changes tiro shown in underline below. I'.'•51101!+�ib1J3c;u:mnti;\dJt'M{��n.dock 109A5i 1?n 75B-111 2-62 i NYICONUENTAL IMPACT AMPUCT ADDRNNIIH AAS(S'FNUNC RAN Cll SL'�[eCD PAOrECT SEPTEMBER III,SANTA ANA,-CALIFOANIA PS -1 The Applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in affect at the time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school district. The Santa Ana School District unposcs fees of- 3.43 per square foot of residential development and --$0.5 ilei square root of coinmerciallinilustiial developmcul in 2017. PS -2 The proposed project shall meet the CiCy's parkland goal by a combination of providing 0.33 -acres of onshc private parkland and/or paymentof parkland fees. Findings Related to Public Services; No New Significant Effects Reryuirinm, Major Certified EIR:Revisions, Based on the foregoing analysis and; information, there is no evidence that project modifications require a major change to the Certified EIR. The project changes will not result in new significant environmental impacts related to -Publie Services, and there is no substantial increase in the severity orimpacls dcseribcttl'in the Certified E1R, No Subsnintial.Change in Circumstances Requiring i<'fajor.Certified EiR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates,that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Public Services that would•require nui.1or, changes to the Certified LiR. No New Information Shoriing Greater Significant Effects.than the Certified EIR. This Ndderidum has analyzed ail available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the EIR was adopted, whichwould indicate that a new signiReanteffect not reported in that document might occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there w-uld:be a new significant impact related to Public Services requiringmaio'r revisions' to the,Certificd EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Sirnifrcant Effects in the Certified EIR. There are;noalternative's to the Projector additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertairiing.to Public Services identified in'and considered by the Certified EIR. 1':ISFIUIGU3Wddenduni:Add7ldum:A+cr inNA5iJN 75B-112 2-63 ENVULOMMENTAL. IMYAOP fl£eoai AooeNUUM AUMSTRONa RAN011 RavissD mojewr 9£PTBMN£R 301, aAN'rA ANA. 4AL@OANIA 2.15 RECREATION ,Nei N. 3uNaiu as slgilacant More Saw Cli¢ua IN., Would Me pmjeCl'; Impact Impact Pmton Aual}xis ❑ ❑ M on of recreational facitifies which mightI El ElM d effect on the em�ironment7 Analysis of Project Changes: a). According t .lhe,.City's,GentkaLPlati Open Space, Parks, and Recreation [louent (1982), the City has approXimately 400, acres ofpulilie park and recreation facilities The, City maintains a ratio and has adopted a standard of approximately two acres of open space per 1,000'residents.. Tile addition oGapproximately 185 residents generated by the Revised Project could incrementally increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. Using the City's atio of two acres per 1,0b0,resideuls, the 'additional,residentsavould. re quire'047 acres of parkland, which is .09.percent of existing'pink area intheCity. In addition,. Chapter 34, Article 8 of the City'SM I unicipal Code war adopted to implement the provisions ofthe Wtuby Act (State of California Planning and Zoning Law, Se 66477), Which allows the legislative body of a city to'iequiFethe dedication of land far park facilities and'or the paymenl•ofin lieu fees for park'and recreational purposes as a condition to;tlie approval forda find tract inap or parcel map for certain. subdivisions. The Revised Prcjectwould-be subject to the,dedication of landfoe.park.facilities and/or the payment of in -lieu fees for park and recreational purposes. The Santa Ana Municipal Code Section34-264, Requirements, states that the subdivider may -he requiredto dedicate land for park'and recreational purposes at the time of approval :of a final subdivision map. As previously described in--Seclion 2.13, Public Services, thi Canified MR concluded that the Approved Project would resph iti.less than sig+nifieant impacts with respect to, park facilities through the provision of onsite private space and the payment of park dedication fees. The Revised Proiect would be subject to the same park requirements:as the Approved. Project, which would ensure.lhal the Revised • Project would not inerease.the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks orother recreation facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur or he accelerated. The Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified FiR. No new initigation is required. by The Remised Project would not include any recreational facilities that would be`open to the, general public. Therefore, the propoccd Project does not includerecreational facilities float would have.an adverse effect on thcanvironinent. The increase in population associated with the proposed 42.unil Project would tic 185 residents. Based on'theCity's parkland requirement of two acres per 1;000 residents, the Revised Project would increase the demand for parkland in the City by 0.37 acre. As previously mentioned, the applicant is required by the City to,pay in -lieu park fees thta vould serve to reduce impacts related to recreational facilities to a less than significant level.The Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those- identift in lhe.Ccrtificd IUR. No new mitignticn is required. Mi(igaliun Measures: P:ISIa1604',AddendumiAddenrmn.Jxc ,.09:U5117,, 75B-113 2-64 ZVVIRON%CNTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARISE VRONO IIANUH k6VISCD PROJECT SYPTENEE¢llly - - -BAN'1'A,ANA, CALICONNiA1 NO mitigation is required, Findings Related .to Recreation: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. Basest on the foregoing analysis and information, -there is no evidence that project modificationsrequirea'maliorchange 'to the Certified EIR The project changes will not result in new sigmilicant environmental_ impacts related to Reurcation, and there is no substantial increase in the scvcrily of impacts described in the Certified EIR No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major Certified EiR Revisions. Thom is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Recreation that would require major changes to the Certified EIR. Nn New Tnformation Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant inPormation to detentiine whethca there is new information that was not available at thetime the ETR was adopted, which would indicate thata new sigiiificaht efi'cet nc tmooeted in that doctiment might occur. Based on the.infdrniatiori and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there t¢ould be a new signitioantriinpact related to Recreation requiring.major revisions to the Certified EIR:- No New Information Showing ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR. '1Tiere -are'no alternafives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pettainiiig to Recreation identified iii and ccnsidered.by the Certified EIR. K-StI JI6UY.Addendum:A:IdLrdum.dccx,-09.'ODI 7e 75B-114 2-65 RNVIRONMliNTAL IML'AUT REYOR'r AUU[NUUM -ARMSTRONG RANCH. REYLirO PROJECT' irPTUMGER ally - SANTA -ANAL CALIPORNrA 2.16 TRANSPFIRTATiONTR'AFFIC Nn Ah"L MS.WA.anl i'Vi d lfre profeCr: \iAM&.0 Impac[ Severe Impact Ct6NEe faun IYeAoni Aaalyaii (�) Cause an lacrease in traffic which is substantial in relationto' the existing'trratlic load mid capacity of'tilLstrect sysicm (Le„ result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ❑ ❑ trips, the volume to capacity ration cin roads; or congestion at intersections)? (b) Exceed, either individuallyorcul ukdivcly, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management ❑ ❑ apency for designated roads or highways? (c) Result in a changz in air traffic-patternsJucluding either as 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 cun�es or dangerous intcrscetions) or. ine'ompatible uses` ❑ ❑ (e. =:,.farm a ui nuent)': e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ M (1) Result ininadequate parkingcapacity? ❑ ❑ M (g) Conflict with adopted policies` supporting alternative ❑ ®' transportation (e.., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Analysis of Project Changes: a) Vehicle trips (list would be gbhcratcd fin a daily basis thrd [shout construction would derive from construction workers and delivery of construction materialS:4\dditional vehicle trips generated during construction could increase congestion on local strects-l-lowever, the majority, of construction workers are anticipated'to arrive and depart outside the peak traffic hours, while delivery trucks would arrive and depart throughout the day. Construction would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure TR -I from the Cerlifted FIR, which requires development and implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to identify truck: routes, situ access, truck queuing locations, undboustruction times to minimize traffic impacts, particularly during peak hours. Witli:impledtetitalion of a CTMPI construction [raffle impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The Certified LIR also conbludcd that with,impleruentation of Mitigation Measure TR -1, construction traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The Revised Project reduces the size orthe Church, Parish Center, Parish Ilall,,and meeting rooms within the project area compared to the project analyzed in the Armstrong Ranch Development Project Environmental Impact Report (1 -HP Associates, lune 2002) and adds 42 single family dwelling units. As'shown in the trip generation comparison prbvided in Appendix 13 the proposed project is anticipated to result in fewer added trips to the circulation system than previously analyzed. Specifically, the project would produce 278 fewer trips on a typical weekday, 75 fewer trips daring the a.m. peak hour, 42 fewer trips.during'the puff. peak hour; and 231 fewer trips during the peak hour of trip generation on a Sunday. The Armstrong Ranch DevelopntenrProject EIR identified significant traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project's contribution of traffic in the Existing (2001), Future Year (2007), and Horizon Year (2025) conditions and presented mitigation measures for those impacts. A'review I':1511016Ua1;\JJenJum'vldJem7um:J«s Uv1U5?I7 75B-115 2-66' ENVIRONMENTAL 19rAOT REPORT ADDENDUM AMMSTNONO RANCH REVISED PROJECT SEPTEYSER 9017 SANTA ANA. CALIEOCNIA of p'rev'iously proposed intersection improvements shows that.all iutersectioti.iniproyemeius recommended for the Future Year (2111)7) conditions have been implemented by 201.6 except it the intersection of Bristol Street/Segerstrom Avenue. The Arnistrong Ranch Developihent Project EIR had anticipated that this intersectionwould operate at an unsatisfactory level of service in the without project condition due to anticipated cumulative projects. A Traffic Impact' Analysis (LSA, 20 17) was prepared analyzing the Revised Project in the existing (2,017) apd,opening year (2019) conditions. The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the additiona142.residential 'units proposed as.part of the Revised Project would notsigniticantly impact the nearby circulation system. All stud} area intersections would eontinue to operate at a satisftictorys Level of Service inboth-the a.m. and p.m, peak hours with the additioiial project - related trdffic. `1776 access driveway to the additional residences would also not interfere with the arterial street system. Therefore, operational traffic impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new signiheant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR: No neve mitigation measures would be required. b) The Armstrong;Ranch Development Project EIA reported that the trips generation, for the -project was lower than the threshold for analysis according to the Orange, Count} Congestion Managenfebt P6grarn guidelines. The p'roject's effect wits therefore dclermined to bvIcss than significant. As reported above, the Revised Project would generale rewer trips within the project area than the uses included in the Armstrong Ranch Development Project EiR. Because the project would produce fewer trips, the trip generation would still be lower than the threshold for analysis according to the Orange County Congestion Management Program guidelines and the impact would continue to be less than; significant, Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new nritigation measures would be required, c) The Revised Project is located in the same project area and does not increase building height cotnpared to the project analyzed in the Armstrong Ranch Development Project 81R. Therefore the Revised Project is not expected to change the previous conclusion that there would be no impact to air triflic patterns resulting in substnntinl safety risks.'llterefore, the Revised -Project would not resuh in new_signific tut impacts beyond those identiFed in the Certified'EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required. d) Similar to the previously analyzed project, the Revised Project proposes standard design features includm,;'an ttoccss driveway from the Jaguar Way cul-de-sac, utilization of theexistingsouth leg or the Jaguar Way/Alton Avenue intersection, and a riglit-iniright-out driveway on Alton Avenue. internal to the project, an existing non-standard intersection between the parish parking lot and YNTCA parking lot would be replaced with a more standard,roundabout resulting, in reduced vehicle conflicts. Thu use of standard features would result in a less thansitmdficant increase in hazards due to design features. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts' beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required c) The Revised Project proposes an access driveway from the Jagintit Way cul-de-sac, utilization of the existing south lug of the Jaguar Way/Alton Avenue intersection, and it right-iii/right-out driveway on Alton Avenue, which should provide adequate emergency access and would provide P;1511C11bM1Addendum'•ilddemlum.dacx<J)W i;lbl 75B-116 2-G7 EVVIRCHMENTAC"IMPACT REPORT ADnENLUM ARUSTRONO RANCH BEVISCN PROJECT BEPTEMRER-4019 SANTA ANA,:' CALIFORNIA ate, saint major access locations as amilyzed in the Armstrong Ranch Development Project EIR. Therefore; the Revised Projcct would not result in -new significant impacts beyond those' identified in the Certified FiR, No new mitigation measures would be required. f} The Revised Project would be provide parking consistent with the requirements of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1320 and 41-1411 whiclrrequ'ire 4 parking spaces per dwelling unit (up to 5 bedrooms) and 1 space for every three fixed seats !within the church and meeting halls. Conforming tR,tltc.Santa Ana Municipal Code parking requirements would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore; the `Rovised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond thoseidentified.in the Cerlificd FIR. No riw mitiga tion measures would. a required. g) The Armstrong Ranch Development,Projcet EIR determined that no significant impacts were identified on alterative transportation systems butrecommended a mitigation measure to encourage use of the bikeway system. Mitigation Measure TR -16 stated that bike racks and•Ior bike lockers woula be included on the church parcel near the proposed hall or meeting building. No residual significant, impacts would remain following'imptemenlation of the mitigation measure. The Revised Project will place bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers on the church parcel near the proposed ball or meeting building and would 16e 1166& also haSe a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Revised Project woulduot result in ncwsi niificant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation Measures; Based on the analysis and infonimtion.above, Mitigation Measures TR -laird TR -l6 included in the Certified EIR.for�thc Approved Project would be applicable to the Revised Project. TR4 F Construction Traffic Mamlg=cntPlan (Cl i1vll') shall be developed for construction activities associated with the residential and church components of the project. The plan shall identify but shall not be limited to: truck routes (consistent with City truck routes), site access, truck queuing locations, and construction titres. TR -16 Bike racks,andW hike lockers shall be includUi on the church parcel, smear'the proposed Ball or meeting building. findings Related:to Transportation4raflic: No New Significant Lffects Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is, no evidence that project modifications require a major change to the Certified HIR. The project changes will not result in new significant environmental impacts related to Transportations Traffic, and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the Certified EIR. No Substantial Change in Circmnstauces Requiring i iajor Certified FIR Revisions. There is no information in time record or otherwise available that indicates (hal there arc substantial changes in P:' M101GNtgytcnaum'.+\ddcrdi+rtl.ilocv 49MVI 7. 75B-117 2-65 BNVIQONXDIfr AL IUr4CT. REi6A7 AD DENDVNAQN ST,R ONG RAN411 R$V[sto 1'%o]ECT 9YPrQXeEQ rrll SANTA'ANA. 'UAUEGRN[A circumstances pertaining to Transportation/Traffic that would require major changes tolhe.C.ertified EIR. No Nein Information Showing CrcaterSignificant Fffects than the Certified FIR. Thio Addendum has ,anafyied'all'available relevant information to determine whether ihere is new information that was not available at the time the EIR was adopted, which would indicate that a new sipilicant effect not reported in that document might occur. -Rased on the in ronuation and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating' that, there would be a new signiftcantimpact related to Transportation/Trattic requiring major revisions to the Certified EIR. No New Information. Slipwing Ability,to Reduce SignificantEffects in the Certified RIR. There arc no alternative's to'the.Project or udditioi al mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more sigtiificant impacts pertaining to TransportationiTraffic identified in and.considcred by the Certified EIR: P3SlIOIf+H'_•NddcndumAddendum.doex (&9A)i17w 75B-118 2-69 INV]RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUMARMSTRONG RANCH?IVI360 PROJECT SCPTEM IR IBI? SANTA ANA; CAL[PORN(A 2.17 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS Nm silb0oatild signi$nnt %to, soem Chunge room Would the prgj'eCC. Impact IMPAd Prtrluus Anulrsb (a) I:xceedwastewtuertreatuteulrewdrements,oftheapplicable ❑ ❑ 22 Rceinnal WaterOOuality Control Board? (b) RLgluire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion orexisting facilities, the ❑ ❑ cnnstraction of which could cause significant environmental cilbcts? (c) Require or result in tbcconstrucliOn of ncty storm gwatcrdrainage facilitiescN•expausionofexistingfnciliries,-the'consuuctionof ❑ ❑ whichcould cause significant cnvirrinmcntal effects? (d) I lave sulliciont writer supplies available Iq serve tac project from existing entitlentono and resources, or are -new. or expanded ❑ 7 cntitleurents needed? (e) Result in a determination by the waslewnercrealmcnt provider which serves or may serve cite project chat it has adequate capacity ❑ ❑ toserve thepioject's projected deal 'and in'additi on to the provider's exisling erinu6iunentV (f) Be served by,a landfill Nithsufficient permitted capacitytn ❑ ❑ ❑ nccummotlatc[hc ro'ixt's srolid wastcdis os, ncedi? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statute.., and regulations ❑ ❑ related to solid wastes_ Analysis of Projeel Changes: a) The Revised Project is not it wastewater treatment facility`and'is not subject to the ixustcwatcr treatment 'requireaients of the Santa Ana Regional Nater Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Local governments and water districts are responsible for complying with federal regulations; both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e:g,, sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to cite wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment because impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and affect hunran health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment -works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requireinents.(WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in with the water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs; issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge.'Hese permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. Each L'O'PW that intends to discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a WDR prior to initiating its discharge. implementation of the Revised Project itivoh'es the constriction of 42 single-fsmily.residential units. As discussed in Response 2.1 bill, the'Project site is in the sewer service area of the Orange County Sanitation District's {UCSD) Reclamation Plant No:1 in Fountain Valley. This facility is responsible for disposal of treated iyastewater. Because Reclamation Plant No.l is considered a POT W, operational discharge flows treated at this plant would be required to comply with applicable WDRs issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB. P:%s HU1G:k1+RdicRSum'alddcndum.dacs OWOSM 7n 75B-119 2-70 ENY[EONMEPTAL IMPAO'r E?POET ADDENDUM .'AFMBTSONC.YANCN' 2EYI3ED.PnOJECT BEPTCMDEE9dV SpNTAANA. ,CA61BOgyIA Compliance }volt conditions orpermlt requirements estahlishcdbythe City, as"well as WD outlmed by the Santa;Ana RWQCB, }t ould ensure that wastewaterdischarges from the Project. sitz and treated by the wastewater'treaftnent facility system would not ciceed applicable Santa Ana R1VQC'.B waster;datertrea[mzutrIe Wrehfents. In addition, using the'samegeneratioii rate. provrdetl iii the Certified EIR (1,488 gallons:perday' [gpd].pei acre for restdential uses);"the residential uses for the Revised Projectare anticipated to generate as additional 4,613 gallons of. wastewater perday (gpd).wWell would be 0.005 percentor the remaining the treatment capacity - of the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. l S1 The Revised Project would reduce die size of the church campus which would reduce wastewater generated from this use: Therefore; the increased was(ewater. flows from the Revised Project.can be.accommodated within the:existillg,design. c.ipacity of Reclamation Plant No. I and would not result iii Reclamation PlanfNo.I exceeding its wastewatertieatment r'eguiremeiits: Additionally, wastewater generated from the Revised Project would be typical of w•astetvater flows:in the City and of existing floti s from-tlte Projeot site. Comparatively, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in the generation of 41;2$8, gallons of }wastewater per day; which would be within the treatment capacity :of the OCS Iteclamation'P1ant No. 1. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond diose Edeutifred in the Certified EIR, No new mitigation Es required. b) Water. The 'City's main sources of water -supply arewater from the O611pCountp writer Distriet (QCWD) andtheMetropolitan Water District of Southe i California (M MD) prtiridcd by the Municipal. Water District of Orangc County: According to the Certified EIR, the Ciiy.relies on 75 percentavater,from the OCNID and 25 pt7cent of water from M%VD. According to the City's. Draft 2015 lrban'Water Management Plan (UWNiP), it is projected that by 2040, , groundwater supply lrcnnalic OGWDavould account for approximately70;perccnt of the City's total water demand. Imported -water from the MWD and,recycled water would account.far the 29 percent and 0:7 percent,•respectively, of the,City`s water demand. Accordine to the Draft2,015 UWMP, the City's wbier supplies. are, projected to,ineet Rill senvice demands:dtiougli the year 2040. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project's,water.detnand would be similar in quantity lo.the Approved Project'"s wastewater demand. The Certified EIR also noted4hat the Approved 1'rojectwould not result ill increased demands oil-watersupplybeyond that already projected. The Certified EIR determined that existing water mains could serve tlteApproved Project. The Ravtsed Project o ould doe elop the site with 42 single-family residential units, which would equate to u projected water demand of approximately 10,574 gpd (I I O.percent of the wastewater generation rate). The Revised Project would reduce the size of the.church camps.which would redtice,water detna.nd of this use. According to the Draft 2015 U W MII, water demand prlijections are developed based on available data as well as land use, population and. economic, growth: The.Revised Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use. designation of Low Density Resider tittl and is within SCAG's growth projections,'llterefore; the. Reclamation Plant No. I has.aciesign capacity of 320 mgd, with a daily flow of 130 ntgd'and a remaining treatment capacity, of 190 mgd. Plcasc note that`an error in calculatioirs in Table 3.l 1-1 of the.0e66fied EiR determined Kiat using I generation of 1,488 gpd per acre multiplied by 23.81 aerrs_would grialc to 1,512. Consequently, the total. wastewater dcmaud for the Apprm�ed Project was reported to be 7;371- gpd, "rather than X11,288 g64. PASHO 16a4%Addcndum Addend"Wmx ee9.05.!17,� 75B-120 2-71 ENVIROVUENTAL IUP40T REPORT.AOPRNOVM lARM1rEONO AANC1r: REV15E0 PROJECT ERP,TEYEER. 2e17 EANTA.ANA, CALIFORNIA increase in water demand h'ad been accounted for in the UNVMP demand projections...As such; the Rei iced Project would not necessitate new or,expanded water entitlements and the.City wonld be able to acconnnodatclhe increased demand for potable water and impacts related ,to water demand would he less 'than significam, The Revised Project Would notresult in new significant. impacts beyond those,idcntifiM in the Certified' EIR. No new.midgation is required. Wastewater. -T le Project site, is located within the jurisdiction of the OCSD. OCSD is responsible for the collection, treatment,aod disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by'ovcr 2.5 million people hvingand working iti the central:and northwestern County of (hangc..00SD facilities would receiv4wastewater generated froin'the: Revised Project Wastc\vatcr from,the Revised Project vronld be treated at (5CSD'sReclamatioii PlantNo. 1' liTountain Valley, Through this"facility,-OCSD successfiilly collects, conveys, Arid treats wastewater generated daily in its servicu ;area before discluirging.lhe treated water into the Pacitic.Ocean. Average.flows.for Re lamation Plant No; 1 are 130 million gallonsperday.(mgd) with a total design capacity-of320 mgd.1 The Revised Project includes the installation of a now sanitary sewerlini) that Would connect to an`er'isthig 9 -inch sairitary sewer line in;TvlacAtlhur Roulevard: The Ro iscd Project Is anticipated to result -mi a wasteviater demand of 9,61ipd from the residential uses and a reduction°in wastewater demand for'the chuech campus. The additional wastewater generated froth the additional 42 -.residential homes would be 0:005 percent of the retraining the treatment of the OCSD Reclamation Plant No; I.-Tlierefore, the increased wastewater flows from the Revised Project can be -.accommodated within the existing design capacity of Reclamation Plant -No. 1. The reforc,.the Revised Project's \bastewitter demand would be accommodated by the available' daily treatment capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Reclamation Plant No, l is in compliance with the Santa Ana'Rcgional %Valetunlity Control Boards (RIVQCB's) wastewater tretitinent requtremetiis. ThcRcvised project would iiot require, nor would it result in, the construction of new wastewater lreatttjcni or collet:tion facili(ies or expinsion of;existing facilities The Certified Elli de-termitied that the Approved Prgiect's:wastewater demand would be within ` -the available. treatment capacity of the wastewater system. Therefore, the.Revised Project would notresultin new signifieant4rapaets beyond those -identified in theCcrlified EIR. No new mitigation is required. c) Refer to Response ;2, I$.d. As diseagscd.furdier in Scction'2.5, Hydrology and WatcrQuitlity, the Revised Project wCluld increase impervioivg surfaces 'areas on'lhe Project site, which would increase the volunie,of stormwatcr runoffgcnc rated from the project site. In voltmie and peak flow'o'f runoff from the site has Ilie potential to exceed the capacity of dew istream storm drain systems. Coiisequetttly,-the Revised Project would.be required to comply with the County Municipal Separate IStorm Sewer System (MS4) Permiiandhydromodification requirements, which require that post -construction runoff be reduced to a less than or equal to existing conditions. The Revised Project would also comply with Mitigation Measures HYD -1 through. HYD -3 df the Certified EIR, wliich,require,drainagc improvements to address increases in stormcvatei• runoff. opipliance with MS;t pennit and preparation of the DAMP and WQMP would reduce the Revised Project's impacts related to stnimdrain capacity lu 'i Ii S's than Orange County Sanitation DisfricL Fa(;is.and Ke)' Statiltics. hnPSCliwww.oCSd.eoM.41011le '.h w•Document?idaI0430'(accessed.September3,2017). -HS11n1 GM1AdtrixlwnSAdduulmn,tloux 409+05',17. 75B-121 2-72 2NYIRONYENTAL IUPAOT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMSTAOHO RAN 011 RBVUEU PROJECT,'fl P.PTP.MFER 8619 SAHTAAHA. CALIFORNIA significant Ievcl. TheCcniDed FIR also concluded that the Approved Project would have a less than'sigitifl ant impael relatcd to the: apacity of downstream 8loimdr3ins with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYi)-1 through HYD -3. The Revised Proiect would not result in new significant impacis beyond those id(nti tied in the Certificd FIR. No new mitigation is required. d) Refer to Response 2.16(b). The relatively moderate increase in water use from implementation of dne Revised Project, as compared to the Approved Proj"t„would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increascxi demand for potable water. Therefore, incremental water demand incrca,§cs from the Revised Project would be within existing and projected water supplies and would not require new or expanded entitlements. The Revised Project would not result in h6 msigniificantimpacts beyond those identified in the -Certified FIR. No new mitigation is required. c) Refer to Response 2.16(6): Although the Revised Project would increase wastewater demand on site, the increased wastewater flows from the Revised Project would be within the design capacity of the Reclamation Plant No. 1. Therefore, the wastewater treatment provider would have adequate capacity to'serve the Revised Project's Projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The Revised Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified In the Certified EiR. No new mitigation is required. t} Solid waste generated in the Project area is collected by WasteManagement acid is taken to the Sunset Environmental Transfer Station, located in hTine. From the transfer station, waste is taken to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine."Chis landfill is•pennitted asti Class III hindfill, and as such, can accept all types of inonhazardow municipal solid waste for disposal. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept 8,500,tous of waste per day and has projected capacity until the ycarl(153.1 Following its closure in 2053, it is anticipated that solid waste from thesite would be disposed of,at the Prima Deshceha LandGll,in San Juan Capistrano, which is permitted to accept 4,000 tons per day of waste and has an anticipated closure daieof2067 2 According the California integrated Waste Xfanagenient Board (CiWNIB); a standard generation rate of i ton per person per year can be used to estimate a project's solid waste generation. Thcrefcre, the addition of 185 persons under the Revised Project would result in asolid waste.gencralion of 185 tons per year, or 0.51 tons per day, which is 0.006 percent and 0.01 percent ordi8 available daily capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and Prima peshecha Landf Il, respectively. The Revisal Project would reduce the size o f the church campus which would reduce -solid waste generated from this use. Using the satne.standard, the Certified FIR concluded that the Apprived Project would result in a solid waste generation of 710 tons per year, or 1.9 tons per day. The Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project's increase in "solid waste would be within the County landfill capacity. The Revised Project would also be required to comply with the City recycling program for residential uses to further reduce the Project's solid waste demand. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would he served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in a less than significant impact to Solid waste and landfill facilities, and 1 Orange County Waste and Recycling, Frank R. Bosbennan Landfill, lato:!iwww.oclaudflls.cola.+laadfiilliaciiveibowerman(acee'ssed`September 1, 2017). Orange County Waste and Recycling, Prima Dcshecha Landfill, http:lleclandn"IIs.coni']andfill/aeliveiclesheeaa (accessed September 1, 2017), P98t101 KMAdiERdnm4Addemtnui.llxs .,D9.11511 A 2-73 75B-122 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARMTfRONO.RANCII RSVISED PROJICT RIPTRMSER.S911 SANTA ANA. • CALIFORNIA no ntitigation0s'required. The Revised Project would.not result in new significagt.impacfs lieyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation is required. g) 'llie California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB:939) vitanged the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling,.und composting). The purpose of the diversion strategics is to reduce dependence (in landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The City provides curbside recycling for both residential and commercial uses, which counts toward the City's solid waste diversion rate. The;City also provides industrial customers with roll -off service for bins or specialized 'compactors each weak. The City also collects curbside residential green waste, which also counts toward the City's diversion -rate.' `llte Revised Project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, Stale, or federal law. In addition, as discussed above, the Revised Project would not wsull in an cuessive production ofsolid waste beyond that which was analyzed;under the Approved Project and would therefore not resulCin the exceedance of the capacity of the existing landfill serving the Pr0jcct site. Therefore, the Revised Project would not_result in an impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and rcgidatioas related to, solid wastes. The 2evised Project would not result in nett?significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation is required., Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Findings Related to Litiliiies/Service Systems: No New Significant Effects Requiring Major.Cerlified EiR Revisions, Based on the foregoing attalvsis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications require a mgior change to the Certified EIR; The project chmiges will not result in new significant environmental impacts related to Utilities!Service Syvstettrs, and there is tit) substanlial increase, in the severity of impacts d scribed in the Certified EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Mafor Certified EiR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Utilities/Service Systems that would require major changes to the Certified EIR. No New information Sho%Ong Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EIR, This Addendum has analvzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the EiR was adopted, which would indicate that n now significant effect not reported in that document might occur. Rased on the information and analyses Waste Man igemcnt, City oi'Santa Ana, htryrs:r, www.wm.coin9ocation. califo niaorange cutmty/santa- ana•'index jsp, (accessed September 3. 2017). P9SH01lpJ1r\ddvndmnJlddcnrhuna.x:x AW05111p 2-74 75B-123 ENV]RONMBUTAL IN FACT'RE_YOH"r AOOENDCM• iCPTEXDER 3011 above there is no sstailtialpewinfbtWatio related to UtilitiubestServicc Systems requiring No.Nuw lnforination-ShufringAbilityto 1t arc no alium ttivcs td ihe`Froject or addiEioi a ono'or more significant impacts pertaining to by the Gcrtifiied Elk. l' 1SHoMI4L\ddmduCMddund=.daEx .:.H.C15117. 75B-124 ARXB"IRONO. RANCIF REVISED PROJECT SANTA ANA;: CALIPORN1A iiripact Certified Elft. Tlt&e substantially i"educe ?_75 6aVIRODURHTAI. tUPAOT RRVORr A002 UOOaI M-rtlUNaR 101, 2.18 N'IANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNiFiCANCE AiY9T0.0NC ' SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA NeR "o seh9tantiat slguIDeRo1 More Severe Qrage from Imp9tl [.OR" i4evums Amly9k ,(a) Does,the project. have [lie potential to ftgrane ale quauly Ofple , environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a tisk or wildlifb species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below sclf- sustamtnglevels.lhreawntoeliminate aplant or.aninlal ❑ ❑ ®. community; reduce the number or resn'ict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ccamplcs of the major pericKIs of California history orprehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,hut cumulatively considctabl;:7 ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the increa euutl effects ot'a projcat are considulatilO Wilctl ❑ ❑ viewed in -connection with the effects of past projects, the effect_c'of other Current roiects, and the effects of probable future;projects?) (c) Does the project have environmental e0fcc s.which will cause substantial adverse efTects on human beings, efdlerdirectly or ❑ ❑ Analysts of Project Changes a) The Project site is partially developed and is located in.an urban area.,No portion'o£ the Project site or the immediately surrounding, area contains .1n open body of water that serves as natural habitat in:'Whicli fish could exist. Asdiscussed in Section 2.4, the California Department or Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDR) Rareflncl5.0 (2016) program was queried for records;and"information of potentially occurring special -status Species documented ,irithin a three -mile -radius of the project,sitc. The records search did not identify any recorded occurrences or federal or state species within a three-mile radius of file Project site. However, the records search did identify Occurrences of California rare plants rank`I B species within a three-mile radius of the Projcct site (s luthern tarplant, Coultcr's goldfields, mud nama, and San Bernardino aster). Although those species are unlikely to occur on the Project site, the potential to occur,on the Project site cannot be ruled out because these plants occur in disrobed habitats, in addition, the Certified FiR identified tilepotctl6al for burrowing owls to occur on the Project site. Finally, the Certified F.IR identified the potential for raptors to utilize "the Project site as foraging habitat. The Revised Project would comply with Mitigation Measure B10=1 in the Certified EIR, which requires preconstructlotl surveys for burrowing owls. In addition, a biological study, including a site survey, would he conducted for the Revised Project to identify any species with the potential to occur on the Project site. it is anticipated that any impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status'spcctLs would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As.discussed in Section 2,5, according to_lhc City of Santa.Ana General Plan, Land Use Element (1993), the Project site is not located in an area of known archeological sensitivity. However, because the general area was once settled by.Native American groups, there remains the probability that areheological materials may be present below the surface. Therefore, unknown archeological 'resources could be exposed during grading and site preparation. llie Revised Project would he required to comply with Mitigation Measure CR -1 from die Certified E1R. As specified in Mitigation Measure CR. 1, if archeological resources are discovered at any time 1':LSf to I b)afAadtmLnnlAddnRlumgl.s oau;115i ria 75B-125 2-76 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AEPOR'r AYRY.NDGM ARMSTROND RANO"DiVISEU PROFE CT SEPTEMbRR 111) SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA during construction actMtiis, those activities would be halted in the vicinity of the find until it can be assessed for significance bya qualified archaeologist. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR 1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources 16 a less than significant level. Likewise, according to the County of GraingeGeneral Plan, Resource Element (2015), the Project'site is not located in'a,general area of paleontological sensitivity. The Project Site was historically used for agriculture. Previous tilling of true site for agriculture would have resulted imground disturbance of up to no more than 2 feet in depth. According to the Certified EIR, if excavation on the Project site exceeds 5 feel in depth, the potential exists for fossil remains tote encountered at previously unrecorded fossil sites. The Revised Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures CR -2 through CR --11 from the Certified EIR. These measures comprise a paleontological. monitoring program in compliance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard measures for reducing potential impacts to paleontolo tical resources to a less than signific.mL level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -2 through CR -1 I would reduce impacts to paleontological resources are to a less than significant level by ensuring the appropriate identification, Lrcaun6t,and curation of any paleontological resources that have the potential to yield substantial information about history or prehimoiy..Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new significant iitipacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation is required. b) The Project site, is, partially developed and is located in an urban area. The Revised Project is a residential development that includes 42.single-family detached residential units and a reduced or smaller Church campus. `the Revised Project Nvould rely out and can be accommodated by the existing road system, public parks, public services, and utilities. The Revised Project would not result in or contribute to a significant biological or culntral impact alicr implementation of Mitigation measures, Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses; impacts related to the,Revised Project are less than sigmiPcant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures, The Revised Project's contribution to any significantcunnilative impacts would be less than cunutlativcly considerable. Therefore, the Revised Pro1ecr vrould not result in neiv significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation is required - c) The Project site is partially developed and is located in :m urban area. The Revised Project is it residmitial development that includes 42 single-ramily detached residential units and a reduced or smaller Church campus. The Revised Project would be consistent with existing City zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Based on. the Project Description and the preceding responses, development of the Revised Project would not'causc substantial adverse effects on human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the Revised Project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Revised ProicuCwould noticsutt iii new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No.new mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required beyond those speci fled in Section 2.1 through 2.8. Findings Related to I'vlandalory Finding's of Significance: P:iS}InIbU+UdJendmnblddcndmn.dttia �U97USi 17n 75B-126 2-77 YYIVIkOKUr NTAC IMPAUTRCPokr AOOFNDUN AR48TRO HO RANCH REVISm PROiLOT RANT.&' AN At'OALIYO R NIA SEPTEMBER 2117 1'd Nen SigiiiflcnittEffects Rcgniring Major Certified -FIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing notysis and inforritation;there is no evidencc ihatprolwL modifications require a major change to the Certified EIR. The project changes will.not result il' new sign iflcant,environmental impacts rzlatzd to Mandatory Findings of Significance, and there is no substantial increanc in the severity of impacts described in the'C&liRed EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major Certified EIR Revisions. There is no infortnation in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining'tp Mandatory Findings of Significancethat would require major changes to the Certified ELR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified EIR. This Addendum ltas'analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there; is new information that was not available at the time the E1R was.adopted, which \\ ould ihdic ity that a new significant effect nt'rcported in.that document might occur. Based on [he information and analyses above, there is n6s , uhitantial new information indicating thatthere would be a ne%v siomificant impact', 'Mated to Mandatory T indings of Sipificance requiring major revisions to the Certified EM No New Informu(ton Shorting Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Certified EIR.'I'here are, no alternatives to the Project or additional mitigation measures that would substaotially'reduce one or snore signi ficant:impacts pertaining to Mandatory Findings,of Significance identified in and considered by the Certified EIR.' P:'5111)t5ai\AddcnduiiilAddendum,ducx t,G9105:17n 75B-127 2.78 ENp1 f ON MF.MTAL IMJ- AU'r; CSPOR'r:All UNNO9M `AxMJTAONO RANCH RXVr9SO PaOJSOS SRPTEM6691I17 - - _SANTA 'ANA;'CALVOYNIA 3.0' DETERMINATION Bused on information and analyses in; this'' Alddendmnand pursuant to Section'15162 of the State CF,QA Guidelines; the City of Santa Ana has determined the following; It There are no substantial changes to the,Project that would requiramajor revisions of,the Certified EiR due lo'new signific mt environmental` effects or a substantial increase in severity' of inpacts identified in the Certified EIR. 2.; Substantial changes have not occurredinthe circumstances under.which the Project is' being undertaken that will require major_ revisions to.the Certified EIR. to disclose new significant impacts. 3.. There is no new, information of substantial ;importance"which was not known at the time the EIR. was certified, indicating any of the followmgf The Prgject,willhave;une,or mare newsign ficanteffects nofdisaiissed in the',Certified El[?; There are, hapacts determined to -he signrficam inahe Cettified`EIR-thatwould be: substantially;.more severe;, • There are,addiijonal mitigation measmres or. alternatives to the Project that would substantially reduce one or more sig 'ikcatit effects identified in the: Certified`EIR; and • ThcTc, arc ndditionul mitigation inea-Sures or alternativesrejectird b"y the Project proponentthat are corisicierably iiit%rent from those analyzed in the Certified EIR that would substantially reduce asignikant impact.ldctitifled in &certified EIR: Based on the information provided abo w;1I beyond those idc-TWFied in'lhe Certified EIR addressed above remain appIicalilelo.lhe Pi the Certified FIR; the proposed improVcmei Based upon the evidenco included in the ab Section 2.0 Would'not result in a substantial Certified EIR. 1'rojectwould not result in additional impacts a measures identified in the Certified Elland. e standards have changed since the approval of e required to comply with"current regulations. s, the,proposed improvements as described in the conclu`stohs and analysis included in the Although the Revised Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effcets (a) have been analyzed adequately in the Certified HIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (h) have been avoided or mitigated pursutmtto mitigation in the Certified EIR, hicluding r visions or miligalion measures that are imposed upon the.proposed Project, nothing further beyond this,Addendum to the cerlified FIR is, required. P,ISt101 E:WLAddendumblddendum.ducx't1391Uz117n 75B-128 3-79 LS 9.11,17 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 4, PERTAINING TO THE ARMSTRONG RANCH DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SALES OFFICES, MODIFY THE PARKING STANDARDS AND INCORPORATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION (SD -4) (ZOA NO. 2017-02) FOR THE PROJECT AT 2001 W. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to amend the Specific Development Plan No. 4 (SD -4) to allow temporary sales offices, modify the parking standards and incorporate development standards for a small lot subdivision within SD -4 located at 2001 W. MacArthur Boulevard. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2017, on Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02. C. The addition of temporary sales offices on the SD -4 parcel will allow the use of temporary structures such as trailers as sales offices, thereby facilitating the sale of single-family residences within the SD - 4 project site. D. The modification of the parking standards within the SD -4 development will align the parking standards for single-family residences within this development with the parking standards for single-family residences throughout the city. E. The inclusion of small lot subdivision standards within the SD -4 district will encourage the development of more affordable single- family dwellings within the south central section of the city while remaining consistent with the general plan designation of Low Density Residential. F. This City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing on October 3, 2017. Ordinance No. NS -XXX Page 1 of 6 75B-129 G. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated October 3, 2017 accompanying this matter. H. For these reasons, and each of them, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2017-02 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum to certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2000-01 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Review No. 2016-143 meets all requirements of CEQA. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Section 15164, the Addendum to the previously certified Armstrong Ranch project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the appropriate document for the actions proposed. Section 3. Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4) is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, 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. ADOPTED this day of 2017. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Ordinance No. NS -XXX Page 2 of 6 75B-130 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, 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 , 2017, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75B-131 Ordinance No. NS -XXX Page 3 of 6 Exhibit A Specific Development No. 4 (SD -4) Armstrong Ranch SECTION 1 —Applicability of Ordinance The Specific Development No. 4 Zoning District (SD -4), as authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26, Section 41-593 et seq., of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, is subject to the standards and regulations contained in this plan for the express purpose of establishing land use regulations and standards. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code shall apply unless expressly waived or superseded by this ordinance. Use district regulations established in Chapter 41, Article III, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code for zoning districts other than the SD zoning district may be incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2 — Purpose The Specific Development No. 4 Plan for the Armstrong Ranch site is hereby established for the express purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by encouraging the use of innovative planning concepts and principles for the planned residential development of a series of separate but related land areas in the City of Santa Ana subject to Specific Development Ordinances 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 — Uses Permitted The following uses are permitted in the SD -4 zoning district: a. crop agriculture, b. single family dwellings, c. accessory buildings and to the primary use, subje d. One (1) temoorary real e e. Municipal Code. uses determined to be incidental and necessary .t to the approval of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4— Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit The following uses are conditionally permitted in the SD -4 zoning district: a. Churches and accessory church buildings and functions. b. Wireless communication facilities. 75B-132 SECTION 5 — Minimum Parcel Area The minimum parcel size for a single-family residential lot shall be 4,000 square feet. SECTION 6 — Minimum Street Frontage The minimum street frontage for a single family residential lot shall be 27 feet. SECTION 7 — Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The maximum FAR for a single-family residence shall be 0.50. SECTION 8 — Front Yard Setbacks A front yard setback of not less than 10 feet is required, as measured from the Property line. SECTION 9 — Side Yard Setbacks A side yard setback of not less than four feet, six inches (4'-6") is required as measured from the property line. SECTION 10 — Rear Yard Setbacks A rear yard setback of not less than 10 feet is required as measured from the Property line. SECTION 11 — Building Height Limit The height limit of main buildings and structures is 35 feet and accessory buildings and structures is 20 feet. The height limit for accessory church structures is 150 feet. The Planning Commission shall have the right to limit the number of stories in any or all of the buildings in the SD #4 district, or the height of any other structure, when it finds that existing or proposed developments on adjacent properties, or properties across a street or alley, would be adversely affected unless such a limitation were imposed. SECTION 12 — Yard Requirements All yard requirements shall be established by the approval of plans and drawings as provided for in Division 26 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 13 - Parkina Reauirements Required parking shall be provided as follows 75B-133 Two parking spaces within fully enclosed garages and one two uncovered parking spaces for each dwelling within the development. SECTION 14 - Dwelling Units Permitted No more than 7 dwelling units per one (1) acre of net developable land shall be permitted. SECTION 15 - Open Space Not less than 50 percent (50%) of the total lot area shall be devoted to open space as per Division 24, Santa Ana Municipal Code (PRD development standards), excepting however that up to a ten percent (10%) reduction to forty- five percent (45%) open space may be granted by the City if it is found that, based on excellence of design, the proposed open space and recreational amenities merit the reduction of the fifty percent (50%) open space requirements. SECTION 16 —Regulations Specifically Included Herein By Reference All requirements, limitations, restrictions and waivers encompassed in Chapter 41, Division 24, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (PRD use district regulations) shall apply to SD #4 use district, excepting therefrom the requirement of an approved conditional use permit and any other requirements, limitations, restrictions and waivers which are in conflict with other sections of this ordinance. SECTION 17 — Landscape Standards In the SD -4 district, all yards shall be landscaped. All landscaping shall be installed pursuant to a landscaping plan approved by the Planning Division. 1. Proiect Landscaping: a. Landscaping must be compliant with the City of Santa Ana's Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance and local California Water Regulations AB( 1881). b. Irrigation Systems: Landscaping shall have a fully automatic irrigation system: irrigation 2. All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines or a hedge -type shrub or be incorporated into the residential structure. 3. Maintenance: a. All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. 75B-134 LS 10.3.17 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2017-01, AS CONDITIONED, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO 43 LOTS AT 2001 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of an existing parcel into forty-three (43) lots at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard. B. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34-127 requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map by the Planning Commission. C. On September 11, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 and recommended approval of the tentative tract map as modified and conditioned. D. On October 3, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01. E. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to approve this Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 34-127 and the State Subdivision Map Act, have been established for Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other Elements of the General Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements will be consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent:with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision of land to create 43 parcels is consistent with the land use designation and all other elements of the General Plan. Land Use Element Policy No. 1.4 Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 1 of 6 75B-135 promotes the maintenance and fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the City and Housing Element Policy HE -2.4 encourages projects that facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. The proposed subdivision conforms to the requirements and intent of the provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map Act. Further, the map is in keeping with the Site Plan Review (Development Project Review No. 2016-24) and Chapter 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required for the project, which need to be approved by the City prior to City Council approval of the final map. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. There are no physical constraints on the site that would preclude development. The proposed site consists of approximately 6.72 - acres of land and is physically suitable for the proposed small lot residential development, where lots will range in size from 4,019 square feet to 8,608 square feet. Access to the site will be from Jaguar Way, which takes access from MacArthur Boulevard, a major arterial. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the Armstrong Ranch development in 2002 pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act. To address potential impacts from this new proposal, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared that analyzed potential impacts generated from the 42 -unit development. The project site is located in an urbanized area, and there are no known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 2 of 6 75B-136 The proposed subdivision will not have any detrimental effects upon the general public. The short-term and long-term impacts identified in the environmental impact report, and further analyzed in the Addendum to the EIR, noted that impacts can and have been mitigated to a level of less than significant through the adoption and implementation of specific mitigation measures. 6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project since there are no public access easements or any other easements located within this property. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act the recommended action is exempt for further review as it was subject to a previously prepared EIR per Section 15164. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an Initial Study (ER No. 2016-143). The proposed project has further been reviewed through an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report 2000-01. CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000, et seq.) authorize the use of an addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these changes do not rise to the level of requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162. The originally certified Environmental Impact Report was analyzed in light of the revised site plan and it was determined that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the new plan. Several mitigation measures that required modification and/or further clarification have been added to the conditions of approval for this project. Additionally, a trip generation comparison was performed to analyze the potential changes in traffic circulation as a result in the change to traffic patterns over the past few years. The result of the traffic analysis concluded that the residential use at this site will result in 75 fewer trips in the morning peak hour, 42 fewer trips in the afternoon peak hour and 278 less trips on a daily basis. According to the updated study, the proposed project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, no additional review or mitigation measures related to traffic are needed. The determination that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report mean that in accordance with CEQA 15164, the Addendum to the previously certified Armstrong Ranch Project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the appropriate document for the actions proposed. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 3 of 6 75B-137 Section 3. The Applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any environmental review or approval, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01, as conditioned as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for the property located at 2001 West MacArthur Boulevard. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 11, 2017, the Request for Council Action dated October 3, 2017, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2017. Miguel Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: '12�' C— z Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Maria Huizar, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2017-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on October 3, 2017. Date: Clerk of the Council Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 4 of 6 75B-138 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2017-01 (County Map No. 18055) is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the tentative tract map. A. Planning Division 1. Comply with all conditions and requirements from the Development Review Committee (DRC) for the development project (DP No. 2016-24). 2. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 3. All real estate signage must be removed from the site within one (1) year from the date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as determined by the Planning Manager. 4. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 6. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 8. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC&Rs shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Authority, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 5 of 6 75B-139 SEPTEMBERI1, 2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 9. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for the common area parcel. At a minimum, the project shall incorporate the amount and size of landscaping as shown on the preliminary landscape plans dated July 25, 2017. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 10. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy as required by the approved plans. 11. The CC&R's shall include language that requires the garages to remain available as parking for motor vehicles at all times. (Added by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2017) 12. permit. (Added by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2017) 75B-140 Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 6 of 6