Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19D - 2051-2101 E. EDINGER AVE. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/AGENCY . ACTION MEETING DATE: A CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: KARCH 15,2004 TITLE: APPROVED 0 As Recommended 0 As Amended 0 Ordinance on Isl Reading 0 Ordinance on 2nd Reading 0 Implementing Resolution 0 Sat Public Hearing For ACQUISITION OF LBABEIIOLD.. BUSDlBSS DI'1'BJtI:STS AIIn LICBlIISJ: AGRJŒMJ:N'1'S WI'1'H VINCI IHVBS'1'IIIar1'S, INC. I'OJ!. CERTAIW PROPERTY LOCA'l'Im AT 2051-2101 J:AB DIBGBR AVJ:RUB CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION . CITY COUNCIL ACTIOII' Approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, 2003-149. Environmental Review No. COIIMU1I1:TY RBDI!:VBLOPIIDI'l' AGmICY ACTIOII' 1. Direct the Agency General Counsel to. prepare and authorize the Executive Director to execute an Agreement for Acquisition of Leasehold and Business Interests with Vinci Investments, Inc., dba Honda Santa Ana for certain ~eal property, furniture, fixtures and equipment and intangible property located at 2051 and 2101 East Edinger Avenue (APNs 402-101-44 & 402-101-45), in the amount of $4,247,897 plus normal closing costs. 2. Direct the Agency General Counsel to. prepare and authorize the EXecutive Director to execute a License and Right of Entry Agreement with Vinci Investments, Inc., dba Honda Santa Ana for property located at 2051 and 2101 East Edinger Avenue. . 190-1 Acquisition of Leasehold & Business Interests and License Agreements for Certain Real Property Located at ,2051-2101 East Edinger March 15, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION On May 5, 2003 the City Council, Community Redevelopment Agency and , Santa Ana Financing Authority took, joint actions to approve the issuance of South Main tax allocation bonds to expand the Auto Mall. The retention and expansion of existing dealerships within the Auto Mall are critical to the long-term financial stability of the City. The bond proceeds will provide the necessary funding for the estimated cost of land' acquisition, improvements and expenses related to the affected businesses along the Edinger Avenue frontage, including the subject properties. With respect to the 2051-2101 East Edinger properties, Vinci Investments (Honda Santa Ana) has independently pursued purchase of the leasehold and business interests and has reached an agreement with the lessees (Exhibit 1). Honda will purchase the business and building and will assume the ABC license and lease for this two-acre site. Once escrow closes, the Agency will concurrently purchase said property and business interests and rights from Honda, including the ABC license, and retain , the lease rights for future expansion of the Auto Mall. The final disposition of the ABC license will be determined by the Agency Board át a later date. Additionally, it is proposed that the Agency execute a License and Right of Entry Agreement with Honda to allow it to utilize the property on a temporary basis, while negotiations for its expansion are underway. , IDIVIROlUIBIITAL DI1'AC'l' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2003-149 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 2). 19D-2 ---- -..,--,.-' Acquisition of Leasehold & Business .Interests and License Agreements for Certain Real Property Located at 2051-2101 East Edinger March 15, 2004 Page 3 FISCAL DIl'ACT Funds are available in the South Main Capital account (account no. 552-936-6611). Projects - Auto Mall APPROVED 1\.S TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Agency I~ ~Executi Director Finance & Management l~ P. Reekstin ecutive Director Community Development . " JPR/SDG/mlr . f,J Serv1ces Agency H . Actions \2004CC\AcqLeueholdloBU8IntMLicAgcm t.Vinc i Inv..tIIIt. for2 0 51- 21 0 lEEdinq.r- 3 -15 - 04 . 190-3 IIOI\CIWIO AV. - /S.ORA&. I/otAP8tt F- .- EDINGER AV. II SANTA ANA AUTO MALL Property Proposed for Purchase Exhibit 1 - ----------- - 19D-4 -- -... IMYOR ""Iuell': Putido . W,YORl'RÖTEM Brett E. Franklin . COUNCILMEMBERS Cloud'. C. Alva",' Lita BI5I Albetu O. Christy Mike Carela Jose Solorio A CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY /OSOph W. Fletch.. CLERK Of THE COUNCIL Palrlcla E. Healy POSTED JUl 620C3 PLANNINC,& BUILDINC ACENCY 20 CIvic Center Pia.. {M.201 P.O. BOX 19B8 . Santa Ana, California 92702 www...nta.ana.OfI NOTICE OF INTENT k TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TOIl ~ :vuTY This is to Inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Project Description: . Projeçt Location: Project Number: Publlç Review Period: Hearing Date: Hearing Location: Specific Development No. 60 (SD-60) Amendment The proposed project involves a zone change for multiple properties along Edinger Avenue from Light Industrial to Specific Development No. 60 (SD-60) and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend provisions and standards within the Specfflc Deveiopment No. 60 Zoning Document. 1941.1961,2009,2101 East Edinger Avenue ER 2003-149 7-18-2003 to 8-6-2003 8-11-2003 City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negåtive Declaration and Initial Study as well as all' referenced documentŠ will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 8-6-2003. Please direct your comments to: Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20. Santa Ana. CA, 92702. ' If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Dan Bot! at (714) 667-2700. . EXHIBIT 2 1 190-5 MAYOR Mlpl . Pulido MAYOR PROTEM Brett E. Frankll. COUNCILMEMBER5 CIJud ¡'C. Alvorea LIA Bist ' Albena Q. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio A CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING" BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center PI..a (M.20)' P.O. BOX 1988. Sa.1a Ana. Calif.... ¡ 92702 www,".".....org CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fleteher CLERK OF THE COUNCil Patrie ¡ E. Healy POSTED JUL 1 6 2003 ~~0EMv . " ;-I(.:i.~\Üi),i~ "'..'¡;':J:i'.1:-i'~ '~{eN Pursuant to the Procedures of ths City of Santa Ana for Implemsntation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: ' Project Number: Applicant: ER 2003-149 City of Santa Ana, 20 CMc Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA Project Location' Address: 1941,1961,2009,2101 East Edinger Project Title' Description: Specific Development No.50 (50-60) Amendment And does hereby find: That the proposed project cannot, or will not, have a significant effect on the environment. Negative Declaration status Is therefore granted for this project. No mitigation measures are required for the proposed proJect. Signat~re:' ~ ~ Environmental Coordinator . Date: 1.-11-2003 This dstennination Is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a NoUce of Detennination Is filed. EXHIBIT 2 2 190-6 . SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT No. GO (SD-GO) AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY ER 2003-149 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project involves a zone change for multiple properties along Edinger Avenue from Light Industrial to Specific Development No. 60 lSD-GO) and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend provisions and standards within the Specific Devèlopment No. GO Zoning Document and a request for the City's Redevelopment Agency to purchase an approximate 2.0-acre property located at 2101 E. Edinger Avenue, SETTING . The SD-GO project area is entirely composed of the Santa Ana Auto Mall. The Santa Ana Auto Mall consists of 38-acres and is subdivided into 12 parcels occupied by 9 'dealerships. The property is bordered by the Orange County Flood Control Channel to the North, the Costa Mesa (55) freeway ~ Auto Mall Drive to the East, Edinger Avenue and industrial buildings to the South and Ritchey Street to the West. The land uses within aD-GO have a General Plan designation of Industrial. The project area is located within the South Main Street Redevelopment project Area and the City's Enterprise and Empowerment Zones. PROJBCT DESCRIPTION As shown on Exhibit 1, the proposed amèndment to SD-60 would expand the boundaries of the SD-60 project area by approximately 6 ~-acres. Presently, located on the 6 ~-acres are two industrial buildings, County of Orange office building and, a restaurant/nightclub. The combined area of'these uses is 91,052 squáre feet. The current General Plan designation for the properties is Industrial. As part of the proposed project, the City's Redevelopment Agency would purchase the 2.0-acre property that is currently occupied by the existing restaurant/nightclub. The purchased property would be included in the amended boundaries for SD-60. . Additionally, the proposed project would amend the site development standards within ,SD-60 zoning document, including amending the list of permitted/conditionally permitted land uses, height restrictions, setback requirements, landscape standards, architectural design guidelines 'and signage requirements. The amended standards would prohibit freestanding office and light industrial land uses and land uses that would not be complimentary to large automoti~e dealership environment. EXHIBIT 2 3 19D-7 The proposed amendment to SD-60 would not increase the maximum level of development intensity permitted within the SD-60 project area. Existing land uses and the proposed land uses to be incorporated into SD-60 would operate at their current uses and their current level of development intensity. RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following is an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment to SD-60, based upon the City of Santa Ana's Environmental Check List. AESTHB'l'ICS A. B. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Damage scenic resources, ~ncluding but not limited to trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a State highway? No Içact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element there are no scenic resources within the SD-60 project area. Additionally, there are no scenic resources along State Route 55 that would be impacted by the proposed project. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in adverse impacts to any scenic vista or other aesthetic resources.. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and it's surrounding? Create a new source of. substantial )"ight or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? D. No Impact The proposed amendment to aD-GO would not involve any land use changes or activities that would result in changes to the aesthetic environment of the Auto Mall. As part of the proposed project, the proposed amendment to SD-60 would establish architectural and landscape standards to minimize aesthetic impacts. . II. AGRJ:CtIL'l'URE A. Convert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Içortance to non-agriculture use? EXHIBIT 2 4 19D-8 . . . B. Conflict with existing zoning fo~ agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? Involve other change. in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, ,could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Pa~and, to non.agricu1ture use? c. No Impact According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and the City's General Plan Land Use Element ErR there are no prime or uni~e farmlands within SD-60 project area. Therefore, approval 'of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in adverse impacts to any agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainœant Plan or congestion,Management Plan? No Impact The City of Santa Ana is included within the South Coast Air QuaLity Management District and subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act at both the Federal and State, level. The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary planning document to monitor if air quality standards and objectives are being achieved in the South Coast Air Basin. The air quality objectives in the AQMP are based upon growth projections provided in local general plans and regional planning programs. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in ,population and growth impacts beyond those identified in local general plans and regional planning programs. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD~60 would not be in conflict with the General Plan and would not result in growth projections beyond those identified in the Generàl Plan and therefore, would not be in conflict with the South Coast AQMP. B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air c;¡ua1ity violation? ' Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? C. EXHIBIT 2 5 190-9 D. Bxpose Sensitive receptors to, substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? B. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in land use changes or changes in development intensities that would increase long-term operational air quality impacts within SD-60 project area. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve any construction activities that would increase short- term air quality and odor impacts. I:U:. BIOI.OGICAL RBSOURCBS A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or tJ. S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any, riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with -the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other _ana? D.Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree p-reservation policy or ordinance? No Impact According to the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base, the SD-60 project area does not contain any sensitive biological resources. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not have any direct or indirect impacts on biological resources. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? EXHJBIT 2 6 19D-10 ,---..--.' . . . B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ~ique archaeological resource pursuant to Section l5064.5? C. Directly or indireot1y disturb or destroy a unique paleontogica1 resource or site? . D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formaloemeteries. No Impact According to the Federal Register of Historic Resources, City of Santa Ana Local Register of Historical Resources and the City's General Plan Land Use Element ,EIR, there are no known cultural resources within the SD-60 project area. Additionally, the SD-60 project area is currently builtout. The probability for the discovery of unknown resources would be low. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in any impacts to known or unknown cultural resources. IV. GEOLOGY/SOILS (A-1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Barthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (A-4) Landslides No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no active earthquake faults, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones or landslides within the SD-60 project area, Therefore, approval and -implementation of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not be subject to ground rupture impacts or landslide impacts. (A-2) A-2. Strong Seismic ,Ground shaking? No Impact The SD-60 project area is situated within an active seismic region of southern California. According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are 38 active faults within a 60- mile radius of the City of Santa Ana. The Newport-Inglewood Fault located eight miles south of the City is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regards to potential seismic shaking impacts. The Newport-Inglewood fault is postulated as having the potential to generate a maximum credible earthquake EXHIBIT 2 7 19D-11 magnitude of 6.3. The project area could.potentially be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake occurs along the Newport-Inglewood Fault or one of the nearby faults in the sout~ern California region. However, the seismic risk at the SD-60 project area is not considered significantly different from other areas in the region. The proposed amendment to SD-60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD-60 project area and would not increase the risk the potential for seismic impacts, beyond the current level of risk. (A-3) a.iamic-related gro~d failure, including liquefaction? No IqIact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the proposed SD-60 project area is considered to have High-to-Very High potential for liquefaction impacts. The proposed amendment to SD-60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD-60 project area and would not increase the risk for potential liquefaction impacts, beyond the current level of risk. B. . Would the project result in substantial Boil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No IqIact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not increase the potential for soil erosion or sedimentation impacts, in that the proposed amendment would not involve any construction activities that would uncover soils. c. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no unique geologic features within the SD-60 project area. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in the loss of any unique geologic features. D. In the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project EXHIBIT 2 8 190-12 . . E. and potentially result in on-o~ off-site landslide, late~al spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Whe~e sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater is the soil, capable of Bupporting the use of septic tanks o~ alternative wastewate~ disposal systems? No Impact According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the SD-60 project area consists of Chino Silty Clay Loam Soils that have moderate shrink/swell potential, high corrosion potential to uncoated steel and low potential for corrosion to concrete. The proposed amendment to SD-60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD-60 project area. The proposed project would not involve any new construction that would subject to geotechnical constraints within the SD-60 project area. v. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATBRIALS A. Create a significant, hazard to the pub1;1.c or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Bmit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a sign;l.ficant hazard to the public or the environment? B. C. No Impact 'The ,proposed amendment to SD-60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD-60 project area. Two of the properties proposed to be included in SD-60 were former service stations. Presently, at one of the properties ground water monitoring is being conducted as part of ongoing remediation of the property. Approval of the proposed amendment to Sd-60 would not impact ongoing remediation efforts. 'The properties proposed to be included in SD-60 have historically involved industrial uses involving the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Some of these properties may require remediation. The handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and the remediation of hazardous substances on contaminated properties would be subject to the local, state and federal regulations. Approval of the proposed . BXHI8IT2 9 190-13 amendment to SD-60 would involve any land use changes or construction activities that would create significant hazardous material safety impacts to the public. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where .uch a plan hall not been adoptsd, wi thin two mile. where a public airport or - public use airport, would the project re.ult in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? - No IJDpact According to the City's General Plan Land-Use Element EIR, the SD-60 project area is not located within any aircraft accident potential zones or crash zones. However, according to the ,General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the SD-60 project area is located within a FAA Notification Area. The FAA has established height criteria to determine potential conflicts with air navigation. The existing buildings incorporated into the SD-60 project area are no more than two stores in height and would not be in conflict height criteria established by the FAA. VI. HYDROLOGY/WATBR QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality .tendard. or wa.te discharge requirements? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not directly result in any adverse water quality impacts, in that the proposed project would not, involve any activities that wöuld result in potential water quality impacts. B. Sub.tantially deplete groundwater .upp1ie. or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge 8uch that there- would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. ,No rmpact Approval and implementation of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not impact underground water supplies, in that the SD-60 project area is not located in areas where there are no underground water supplies or underground water recharge areas. EXHIBIT 2 10 190-14 -,------- . C. . ,F. D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of .sisting or 'planned stOCD water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? No Impact The SD-60 project area is currently improved with drainage facilities. The proposed amendment to SD-GO would incorporate existing buildings into the SD-GO project area. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-GO would not directly alter existing drainage patterns or directly increase existing rates of surface water runoff. ' B. Place housing within a lOa-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Plood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Place housing within a lOa-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Plood Insurance Rate Hap or other flood hazard delineation map? G. Nó Impact .According to Flood Rat,e Insurance Map OG059Co'038F the SD-60 project area is not situated within a 100-year flood Zone. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not be subject to 100-year flood risks. . VII. LAN]) USB/PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-GO would not physically divide any established communities or neighborhoods, in that SD- 60 is currently void of residential land uses. s. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project EXHIBIT 2 11 19D;.15 adopted for the purpose enviroDmaDtal effect? of avoiding or mitigating an No Impact The proposed amen9ment to SD-60 would expand the boundaries of the SD-60 project area by approximately 6 *-acres. Presently, located on the 6 *-acres are two industrial buildings, County of Orange office buildings and a restaurant/nightclub. The current General Plan designation for the properties is Industrial, which is consistent with the City's General Plan designation for SD- 60. Approval of the proposed proj ect would not be in conflict with the General Plan. c. Conflict with any appli'cable habitat conservation plan or natural commMnity plan? No Impact Accòrding to the City's General Plan Land Use Element SIR, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans established within the ~ity of Santa Ana. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not be in conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. VIII. , JlINERAL RBSOURCBS A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other iand use plan? No Impact The City's General plan Land Use Element ErR identifies that there are no areas in Santa Ana that contains Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in adverse impacts to any mineral resources.' ' IX. NOISB A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. EXHIBIT 2 12 19D-16 ---.-.. .------. "--- . . . B. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Exposure of persons to or generation of 8¥cessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. A substantial temporary. or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project'vicinity above levels existing without project. c. P. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not directly result in any short-term or long-term noise impacts or excessive groundborne vibration impacts, in that the.proposed project would not involve any changes in land uses, changes in development intensities or construction activities that would increase long-term or short-term noise levels within the SD-60 project area. B. For a project located within an aizport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or pub;Lic use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The City of Santa Ana is located just southeast of John Wayne Airport. According to the Orange County Airports Environs Land Use Plan, there are no areas within the City that are within the noise impact area or 65 CNEL of John wayne Airport. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60.would not eXpose people within the SD-60 project area to excessive aircraft noise impacts. x. POPULATION/HOUSING A. Induce substantial popu;Lation growth in an area, either directly or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. . Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement houeing elsewhere? B. c. No Impact EXH1B IT 2 13 190-17 The proposed amendment to SD.60 would incorporate existing land 'uses buildings into the SD-60 project area, which are consistent with the City's General Plan. Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not induce substantial growth in the City, beyond what is projected in the General Plan. Additionally, the SD-60 project area is void of residential land uses. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not displace existing residential uses or population. XI. PUBLIC SBRVICBS Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities No Impact The proposed amendment to SD-60 would incorporate existing land uses and buildings into the SD-60 project area. Approval of the 'proposed amendment to SD-60 would not involve any land use changes or changes in development intensities that would generate additional demands for public services over current levels of demand within project area. XII. RECREATION B. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accslerated? I:)oes ths project include, recreational' facilities or require the construction or expansion of' recreational facilities, which' might have an 'adverse phy~ca1 effect on the environment. A. No :Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not directly increase the demand for recreational facilities, in that, the proposed project does not involve any lànd use changes or . activities that would increase the demands for recreational facilities. XIII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? EXHIBIT 2 14 19D-18 . . . B. Bxceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county co~gestion management agency for designated roads or highways? SUbstantially increase hazards to a design feature Result in inadequate emergency access Result in inadequate par~i~g capacity' Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportatiop. D. B. F. G. No Impact The proposed project would incorporate existing land uses into the SD-60 project area. Approval of the proposed project would not involve any land use change or changes'in land use intensities that would generate additional traffic. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not have a direct impact on traffic volumes, roadway configurations, emergency access or level of services established in the County of Orange Congestion Management Plan or alternative modes of transportation within the project area. C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic 'levels or a change in locatiop. that results in sUbstantial safety risks? No Impact Approval proposed amendment to SD-60 would not have any adverse impacts on air traffic patterns, in that the existing buildings incorporated into the SD-60 Project area are no more than 2- stories in height and would not interfere with air traffic patterns. P. Result in inadequate parking capacity No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-6ß would not result in impacts to parking facilities in that the proposed project does not involve any land use changes or changes in development intensities that would increase existing parking demands. XIV. UTILITIES/SBRVICE SYSTEMS A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?, EXHIBIT 2 IS 190-19 s; Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enviroamental effects? Require or result in the constnction of new drainage facilities or ,expansion of existing the construction of which could cause environmental effects? . Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fram existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? . Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serye the project' s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? c. storm water facilities, significant D. B. F. G. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not generate additional demands for utility service systems over current levels of service being provided, in that the proposed project does not involve any land use changes or, changes in land use intensities that would increase the demands for utility service systems. xv. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCB A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levals, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or, animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not have an impact on any plant or wildlife species or known cultural resources, in that the SD-60 project area is not known to contain any sensitive plant, wildlife or cultural resources. EXInBIT 2 16 190-20 __0" .,__0. . . . B. Doe. the project have impact. that are individually limited but cumulativelY considerable? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD-60 would not result in any significant cumulative impacts. in that the proposed project dòes not of involve any land use changes or changes in land use intensities that would increase cumulative impacts within the SD-60 project area. ' c. Does the project have environmental effect., which will cause substantial adverse effect. on human being. either directly or indirectly? No Impact Approval of the proposed amendment to SD~60 would not directly cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings in that the proposed project would not involve any activities that would cause adverse impacts on human beings. . XVIII. DBTBRKINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. XVIV. REFERENCBS city of Santa Ana General Plan September 1982 Environmental Impact report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 City of Santa Ana zoning Ordinance, December 1998 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Site visit July 2003 by Dan Bott California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity data Base South Coast Air Quality Management Plan EXHffiIT 2 17 19D-21 California Department of Conservation Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program Federal register of Historic Resources City of Santa Ana Local register of Historic Resources Flood rate insurance Map 06059ÇOO38F Orange CoUnty Airports Environs Land Use. plan xx. PRBPARKRS Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator City of Santa Ana. EXHIBIT 2 18 19D-22 . .1 II l I I Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. II. Project Title: SpecIfic Development No.5O (S0-60) Amendment , ProjectNumbers:ER2003-149 III. Lead Agency Name and Add...as: City or Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) . Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. V. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bolt (714) 667-2719 LocaUon: 1941~ 1961,2009,2101 East EdInger Avenue . VI. Environmental DetermlnaOon On the basis of this InJtJaI."aluaUon, I find that: 'A. ¥ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant etrect.on the environment and a NEGATIVE f"'t DECLARATION win be prepared. B. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen~ there will not be a significant . effect In this case because revisions to the project have been made by or egreecI to by the appI!canl A MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c. 0 'The proposed prc ect MAY have a significant elfecton the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RePORT Is required. D. 0 Although the proposed project could have 8 sIgnIficant effect on,the envlronmen~ because an pcjtenUalIy significant effects (a) have been analyzed sdequatsly In an e8IIIer EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mltigateclpursuant 10 illat earlier EIR, Including revisions or mitigation measures that 8rII ~ upon the prc ect, nolhlng further Is required. E. 0 Pursuant 10 SectIon 15164 or the CEOA Gufdellnes, an EJR (EIR No. . ) has been prepared earlier and only minor IIIc:hnlcal changes or additions artI nec:essaty to make the previous EIR 8dequate and lllese changes do not raise Important new Issues about the significant elfects on the envIronmenl An ADDENDUM 10 the EIR shall be prepared. F. 0 Pursuant to SectIon 15162 or the CEOA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No..) has been prepared ea~ler; howsver, subsequent proposed changes In the project and/or newlnlormatlon or subslantial Impo<1ance will cause one, or mora significant elfects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. ~j)M~ . Signature' iWt ~ ' ~rint2t-l . '1 -<t;~ ZÐO3, Date . O,"..,~wo;d'",n'.ch.::k.doc\1.15.'9 EXHIBIT 2 19 19D-23 P,~. 1 0/1 .1 II I , I Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief eXplanation Is required for e 1 answers except .No Impacf' answers that are adequately supported by the Information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer Is adequately supported If the referenced information sources show that the Impact simply does not apply to projects like the one Involved (e.g., ths project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A .No Impacr answer should be explained where It Is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-speclfic screening analysis). ' All enswers must take eccount of the whole ectlon invOlved, including off-site as wall as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, Indirect as well as direct, and CO/UIlruction as well as operational Impacts. II. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" Is appropriate If there Is subs ¡¡ntlal evidence that an effect Is significant If there are one or more .Potentlally Slgnlficantlmpecf' entries when the determlnetlon 18 made, an EIR Is required. "Potentially Significant Unless MItigation Incorporated" applies where the Incorporation of mltlgatio!1 measures has reduced an effect from .Potentially Significant Impact" to a .Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce ths effect to a less than significant level. rI. PotentIally Slgnlftcant Potentially Unless Less Than Slgnlftcant Mltlgelion Slgnlflcant No Illu.. & Supporting information 8ouI'CU IlÍ1p8cf IlICOl )Ot3ted Impact Impact I. Aesthetics - Would the project: A. Heve a subslanlisl adverse effect on a scenic vIsta? 0 0 0 ~ 'B. ,Damage acenlc resources. Including but not limited 0 0 0 M to. treas, rocl< outpourings end historic buDdlngs within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade ths existing visual character ~ or quality of the site end Its surroundings? 0 0 0 D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would edversely affect day or nlgtlttlme views 0 0 0 9\ In the area? EXHIBIT 2 20 190-24 Pag.1of10 md\mswonI\anYCheck.doc\ 1.1 "89 '-' 81 . II.~ " Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mltlgetlon Significant Impact Incorpotatedlmpact No Impact U. Agricultural, Resource. - In determining whether Impacts. to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agsncIes may refer to the California Agrfcultural Land Evafuation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as 811 optional model to use In assessing ImPacts on agricultural farmland. Wo~ld the project: . A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of StatewIde Importance (Fermi and) to non-agrlcultural use? (The FII/T11Iand Mapping and Monitoring Program In the California Resources . Agency, Departmsnt of ConS81V8t1on, maintains detaDed maps of these and other categorlss of farmland.) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or s WIlliamson Contract? 0 0 >s{ 9(. « AIr Quality - WI1ere avanable. the sIgnIfIcance crIt8rIa established by 'the applicable air quality management or III, pollution control dlstrlcl may be relied upon to make the following detennlnallona. Would the prcject: . B. C. Involve other changes In the existing environment which, due to thslr location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result In loss of Fermland, to non-agrlcultural usa? ' A. Conflict with 01' obstrucl Implemenllitlon of applicable þJr Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plsn? B. VIolate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existIng or proposed sir quality vIoIetlon? Result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the prcject raglon Is non-altainment under an applicable federal or .tale emblent elr quality standard (Including releasing emission which exceed quantitative 'thresholds for ozone precursors)? C. D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concantrations? tT1d\mSwon!\o!I_.dOC\ 1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 21 190-25 0 0 0 0 ;V ~ ~ ~ Pag82o110 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .1 l . Environmental Checklist I I For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially UnleSS Leas Than SlgnJflcant MItigation SIgnificant No InUN & Supporting Information Source. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact E. ,Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 0 0 0 ~ number of people? r/. Biological Resource. - Would the project: A Have a substantial adverse Impact, either directly 0 0 0 ~ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species In local or regional plans, policies or . regulations or by the California Departmènt of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WUdlifs Ssrvfœs? B. Have s substantial adverse Impact on any riparian 0 0 0 ~ habitat or natural community Identified In local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WUdllfs Service? C. Adversely Irnpac:t federally protected wetlands 0 0 0 ~ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either Individually or In combination with the known or probable impacts of other 8Ctivlties through direct removal, filling hydrological IntarrupUon, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordln8nc8S D . 0 0 ~' protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? V. Cultural Resources - Would the project: A Cause a substantial adverse change In the 0 0 0 f( slgnlflcanca of a historical resource as defined In SecUon 15O64.5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change In the 0 0 0 ~ significance of a unique archaeological resource , pursuant to define Section 15O64.5? C. DlrecUy or indirectly disturb or destroy e unique 0 0 0 P{ paleontogical r&$Ource or site? _check.doc\l.1S.99 EXHmIT 2 Page30f10 22 19D-26 '-'.'. . Environmental Checklist I I . I I For CEQA Compliance Potentially SignIficant Potentially Unless Leas Than Signlflcant Mitigation Significant No laau.. & Supporting InfonmaUon Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D. . Disturb any human remaIns, Including those 0 0 0 P{ Interred outsIde of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Solis - Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substanUaJ 0 0 0 0 edverss effects, Including the risk 01 loss, Injury, or death Involving: 'i. Rupture 01 en known earthquske faul~ as D 0 0 Ji( delIneated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist-PrIolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map Issued by the State Geologist lor the area or based on other substantiel evidence 01 a known fault? . 2. Strong seismic ground shakIng? 0 0 0 Jðf 3. SelsmJc.reJated ground faBure, Including 0 0 0 ~ liquefaction? 4. landslides? 0 0 0 ~ B. Would the project result In substantial son erosion 0 0 0 9( or the loss 01 topsoil? C. Would the project result In the loss of a unique 0 0 0 Ii( geologIc feature? D. Is the project located on strata or soB that Is 0 0 0 k unstable or that would become unstable as a result 01 the project and potentially result In on-or off.slts landslide, latera! spreadIng, subsidence. liquefaction or collapse? E. Wltsre sewers are not available for the disposal of 0 0 0 9( wastawater, Is the soU capable ot support/ng the ,use of septic tanks or alternallve wastawater disposal systems? . rnd\mawonIIenvcck.docI1.15.SS EXHIBIT 2 ,"-40110 23 19D-27 .1 Þ I '" I I Environmental Chec.klist For CEQA Compliance laau.. & Supporting Information SoUrc811 VlI~ Hazárdoua and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant MItIgation SIgnificant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 L( environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous malerlals? B. EmR hazardous emissions or hand'" hazardous or 0 0 0 w: ,acutdy hazardous materials, substance or waslll within ontH uarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which Is located on a list of 0 0 0 P( hazardous materials sites compRed pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would It creats a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. ' For a project Ioceted within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 A' or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mllas where of a public airport or pub/ic use airport, would the project result in e safety hazard for people residing or working In the projeCt area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quallty- Would the project A. VIolate Regional Water Quslity Control Board water 0 0 0 ~ quality standards or waste dlscharga requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwalllr supplIes or 0 0 0 ~ Inlllrfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a nat deliclt In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (I.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to s level which would not support 'existing land uses or planned uses for which pennlts have been granted)? _.--1.18.89 EXHIBIT 2 24 19D-28 Page 80/10 . ÞI I Environmental Checklist . I I For CEQA Compliance Potentially SIgnIficant Potentially Unless Less Then Significant Mitigation Significant No Issue. & Supporting Information Sourca. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C. . Substantially alter the existing drelnage pattern of 0 0 0 W the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result In flooding 'on or off- site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would 0 0 0 j( axœed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? E. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as 0 0 0 ?{ mapped on a federal Flood H8Z8rd Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other IIood hazard . delineation map? F. Place withIn a 100-year floodplain structures Which 0 0 0 ~ would Impeds or redirect flood flows? G: Place housing within a l00..year floodplain, as 0 0 0 ~ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the projed: A Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 12\ B. 'Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy, 0 0 0 jK.. or regulation of an agency with Jurisdiction over the project (Including. but not limited to the general plan. specifIC plan, local coastal program. or zoning ordinance) edopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an envlronmantal effect? C. ConflIct with any applicable habitat conservation plan 0 0 0 P( or natural community conservation plan? X. MineraI Resources - Would the project: A. Result In the loss of availability of a Iocally- 0 0 0 J( . Important minerai resource recovery site delinaated on a local general plan, speci1ic plan, or other land use plan? -ock.cIocI1.1S.99 BXHIBIT2 PagoSot1o 25 19D-29 . I l Environmental Checklist I I For CEQA Compliance PotentiaUy Significant Potentially UnlØS$ Less Than Significant MItigation Significant No Issu.. & Supporting Inform8lJon Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. Noise - Would the proJed result In: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise O. 0 0 .~ levels In excess of standards established In' the local genera] plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? . B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 0 f( groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C. A substantial permanent Increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 Pi!. levels In the projed vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic Increase In 0 0 0 Ji{ ambient noise levels In the projed vfclnlty above levels existing without proJed? E. , For a project Iocsted within an airport land uss plan 0 0 0 A' or where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of s public airport or public use airport, would the proJed expose people residing or working In the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. Populetlon snd Housing - Would the project A. . Induce substantial population growth In an. area. 0 0 0 J( either directly (for example, by proposIng new homes and business) or IndIrectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 0 0 ~ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? .C. ,Displace substantial numbers 01 peopls, 0 0 0 Þ{ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? _ck.dool1.1U9 EXHIBIT 2 26 19D-30 Page 7 a/ 10 .1 I. l, . I I Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless L8S8Than SIgnificant Mitigation SIgnificant No ,"uss & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. Public Ssrvlc:es A Would the projeet result In substantial adverse 0 0 0 0 physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or phYSically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or othsr performance objectives for any of the , public servlca: Fire protectJon? 0 0 0 * Police protection? 0 0 0 . Schools? 0 0 0 ~ Parks? 0 0 0 j( Other public fsclllties? 0 0 0 ø.. XIV. Recreation A Would the pro sct Increase the use of existing 0 ,0" 0 ri\( neighborhood and regional .parks 'or other recreational, facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facUlty would occ:ur or be accelerated. B. Does the project Include recreatIonal facilities or 0 0 0 I;t( requlra the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might havs an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation I Traffic A. Cause an Incrsase In traffle whlctlls substantlal!n d 0 0 p{ relation to the existing traffle load and capacity of the street system (I.e. resu~ In a substantial . increase In either the number of vehicle ,trips, the volume to capacity ratIon on roads, or congestion at Intarsactlons?) md\mIwonIIonvchlClc.doc\1.1S.911 EXHIBIT 2 PsgeSof10 27 19D-31 . .. Environmental Checklist j j For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SIgnificant Mitigation Significant No I..u.. & Supporting Information Source. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact B. ,Exceed, either Individually or cumuiativsly, a level 0 0 0 t( of service standard established by the county congestion managemenl agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result In a change In elr traffic patterns, Including 0 0 0 ~ either an Increase In traffic levels or e change In location that results In substantial safety risks? D. Substantially Increase hazards to a design feature Ó 0 0 ~ (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? E. Result In Inadequate emergency eccess? 0 0 0 ; F, Result In Inadequate parking c;apaclty? 0 0 0 G. Conftlct with adopted policies supporting elternative 0 0 0 jg[ 'transportaUon (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. Utilities and ServIce Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ths tJ 0 0 K. appllcabls Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result In the construction of new water 0 0 0 ~ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of exJsting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result In the construction of new stonn 0 0 0 ,c water dralnege fscDlUes or sxpanslon of exJstlog facUlties. ths construction of which could c;ause sIgnificant environmental effects? D. he sufficient water supplIes avellable tø SIllVS the 0 0 0 p( project from' existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded enUtiemants needed? E. Result In the determination by the wastewater 0 0 0 Ç( treatment provider which SBNes or may servs the project that It has adequate capacity to aBNe the project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? rnd\m.word\envch-.doc\ 1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 Poge Sol 10 28 190-32 ..----..... . .. l Environmental Checklist . I I For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless less Than SJgnlficant Mitigation Significant No Issu.s & Supporting Infonndon Sourc.s Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Fe Is the project servsd by a landfill with sufficient tJ 0 0 ?{ permitted capacity to acx;ommodate the projset's sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, slate and local slatutes and 0 0 0 ~ regulations related to solid waste? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 0 ft\ quality of the anvlronmenl, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish Dr wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self~suslalnlng levels, threaten to eliminate a plent or animal . community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare Dr andangered plant Dr animal or eliminate Important examples of the major perIods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have Impacts that are IndlvlduelJy 0 0 0 IX limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable. means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other currant projects and the effects of probabls future projects). C. ,Does the project have envlronmenlal effects which 0 0 0 ;X; will cause substantial adveraa effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? . ~--doc\1.15.99 EXHIBIT 2 29 19D-33 Pogo 100110 AFfIDA vrr OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) , )ss. County of Onnge ) , 10m acitize4 of the 11Dited Slates aod a res/daIt of the COUllI)' aforesaid; I 1m 0- the aae of ei¡h1eel1 years, and not a party 10 or iDtetcsIed in the above entitled _. I am ~ prÎDCÌpIl " cleric of, Tbe OraD,. CODIt Re¡/sI.r, ,a 11CVI3pOPCt of ¡oaezaI eúçu\a11oa , published in tho cil)' of Santa AtJa, CouI1ty of Orqo, 1IId' which øewspapor has been llijudaed 10 'boa Dew8p1JlU of ¡eamI clrculalloQ bY the SIIpCdcr Court of tho County of Oranao , Slalo of, CaIIfom!a. 'UIIdOr the dato of Nowmbor 19, 19O5, Case'No. A-21046, !hat the 1IOIIce, of whicb tho am>oUd is a INO printed copy, has, hoeD published in each re¡u\ar iDd CIIIire issue oè said nowspapot and DOl ,in OIly søpp\oœoDt theRof 011 tho IbI1owina datos, 10 wi!: 1u1y 18,2003 "I certify (or dcclano) ~ tho ~ of perjwy IIIIder the laws of the Slalo of CaIibDia thai tho foie¡oin, S'INO IIId CoIRCr: ' ,EXeculed aI 'Saata AtJa, Orau¡o,~; , CaIifomia. on Date: 1t'Y':?A/<, ',í-/V~ ~ The Orange County Register 62SN.GrandAve. SlIIIta Ana, CA 92701 (714) 796-7000 ext. 2209 EXHIBIT 2 30 19D,-34 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1Iús !I IOC81s Ibrlbo CouoIy CJaI(. Fi1ù>J SÞoap RECEIVED JUl 2 1 2003 ß.IHIA AlIA ~ ÐEP1' ..onn......... ';: , ..--.~=~, PIoofofNillOldool. ._".._...~- ~i:1~ , e'~y~ p ,~hï~r '=-~~ ' ::P.::~' ~~¡'" - ""'~- E:~ .- ........ ,...' ìR-" ;,'1; r __-\1 -! :=;;r -. . Ik~_, ' =l-";"~':\ -_...~.."..'I :: .:r"'"- ~..i: ._- ""~:r~'" ==:- .:.~~: ==::.."""~I =...-..-== _.....~~ ~"Oori_' ~f~li ~='~ -~..!..j'~, ::.-,~. ! "'.- .