HomeMy WebLinkAbout75B - 2701 NORTH BRISTOL
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
OCTOBER 4, 2004
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL NO. 2004-08
(AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2003-17 AND VARIANCE NO. 2004-05)
TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED
PARKING FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 2701 NORTH BRISTOL -
RED MOUNT~I. ...\RE .TA. I " APPELLANT
.././~/ /
(;t- ~t!h. // I/U'(CtZ--
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 151 Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve Appeal No. 2004-08.
2. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-181.
3. Adopt a resolution approving amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
2003-17 as conditioned.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-05 as conditioned,
with the elimination of Condition NO.8.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. Approved and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-181.
2. Adopted a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-05 as conditioned.
3. Adopted a resolution amending Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 as
conditioned.
At its August 9, 2004 meeting (Exhibit A) by a vote of 5:2 (De La Torre
and Sinclair opposed) .
DISCUSSION
On June 28, 2004, Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proj ect. After holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission
expressed concerns with the size of the building, the parking reduction
and the potential for significant traffic impacts. The Planning
Commission continued the item for 45 days and directed the applicant to
meet with staff to discuss the issues raised.
758-1
Appeal No. 2004-08
(Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Variance No. 2004-05)
October 4, 2004
Page 2
After several discussions with staff and some Planning Commissioners, the
applicant proposed to (1) revise the landscaping plan to incorporate
addi tional trees, (2) enhance pedestrian walkways, and (3) reduce the
number of tenant spaces from four to three. This last item, reducing the
number of tenant spaces from four to three, is the focus of this appeal.
In proposing these changes, the applicant had hoped to address
Commissioners' concerns about both aesthetic and circulation issues.
Accordingly, the changes were incorporated as conditions of approval.
The applicant later determined that a restriction on the number of tenant
spaces would be an undue burden on its marketing and leasing efforts in
the shopping center.
The property owner expressed these concerns at the August 9, 2004
Planning Commission meeting, specifically requesting that the limitation
on the number of tenant spaces be eliminated. In addition to discussing
the marketing and leasing constraints, the applicant maintained that,
pursuant to the parking study, the center would have adequate parking.
The applicant further noted that the City's parking requirement is based
on total building square footage rather than on the number of tenant
spaces.
The Planning Commission considered the testimony provided by the public
and approved the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 and
Variance No. 2004-05 as conditioned. The Commission required the
reduction in the number of tenant spaces as they believed it might help
to minimize circulation and parking problems.
Staff believes that the effect of reducing the number of tenant spaces
would be negligible. As the parking study indicates, the shopping center
is expected to have sufficient parking with the proposed four tenant
spaces. Staff further believes that achieving a measurable reduction in
parking or traffic demand would require a significant reduction in actual
square footage of the proposed commercial addition. Since the Planning
Commission did not require and the applicant does not propose such a
square footage reduction, and given the plausible marketing and leasing
constraints, staff recommends that the City Council approve the
applicant's appeal by eliminating Condition No.8 of Variance No. 2004-
05.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
s1!!::f~f:jng
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
CR:rb
cr\reports\cup03-17var04-05.cc-appeal Rev
758-2
KO-09/27/04
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-081
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING APPEAL NO.
2004-08, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2003-17 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A DRIVE-
THROUGH WINDOW SERVICE AND APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2004-05 AS CONDITIONED FOR A
REDUCTION IN THE ON-SITE PARKING FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2701 NORTH BRISTOL
STREET
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 requested approval of Variance No. 2004-05 to allow a reduction
in the off-street parking requirement and an amendment to Conditional
Use Permit No. 2003-17, which permitted drive-through window service,
for a new commercial development at 2701 North Bristol Street.
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program,
Environmental Review No. 2004-181, the amendment to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2003-17 and Variance No. 2004-05 came before the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on
August 9, 2004. The Planning Commission voted by a vote of 5:2 (De La
Torre, and Sinclair opposed) to approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-18,
approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 and
Variance No. 2004-05 as conditioned.
C. Applicant appealed Planning Commission's decision, specifically objecting
to Condition NO.8 of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17, which read,
U[t]he four proposed tenant spaces shown on the southwest corner of the
site plan (Exhibit 3) shall be reduced to three tenant spaces. The overall
square footage may remain unchanged."
758-3
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 1 of 6
D. On October 4, 2004, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly
noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2004-08, Conditional Use Permit No.
2003-17, and Variance No. 2004-05.
E. The amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 has been filed
with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the construction of a Starbucks
with drive-through window service at 2701 North Bristol Street. Pursuant
to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-365.5 eating establishments with
drive-through window service are permitted uses subject to the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain
findings.
I. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
the community?
The proposed Starbucks with drive-through window
service will provide a service to the community by
providing an additional restaurant opportunity in the
area. Additionally, the drive-through lane will provide
an added convenience to customers using the coffee
house.
ii. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the
particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house will not be
detrimental to persons residing and working in the
area as the on-site vehicular circulation system is
designed to avoid conflicts on-and off-site. A
combination of berms and hedges will be provided in
the front yard setback area along the Bristol Street
frontage to screen the drive-through aisle and reduce
glare. The on-site circulation will allow additional
stacking within the site thereby avoiding impacts to
Memory Lane and the vicinity.
iii. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties
surrounding the area?
The proposed project complies with Policy 2.5 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan as it provides
758-4
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 2 of 6
the economic benefits of commercial development to
the City without impacting the quality of life for
surrounding residents. The Starbucks coffee house
with drive-through window service will generate City
tax revenue and employment in the community. The
use provides services that compliment surrounding
businesses and, as conditioned, will not adversely
affect economic development or stability of the area.
iv. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in this chapter for such use.
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-
through window service will be in compliance with the
applicable sections of Chapter 41 of the Municipal
Code. The use will also comply with all applicable
county and state provisions, including health codes
and ADA requirements.
v. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or
any specific plan of the City?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-
through window service is in an area designated
General Commercial (GC) in the General Plan. The
project complies with the Land Use Element and
Urban Design Element of the General Plan and will
not negatively affect them. Lastly, the use is
consistent with the Community Commercial (C1)
zoning district that allows retail and service uses.
F. Variance No. 2004-05 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to
allow the reduction of the off-street parking requirement by of 52 parking
spaces.
1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a variance upon making certain findings.
I. That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning
ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of
privileges not otherwise at minor exception with the intent
and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter.
There are special circumstances applicable to the
subject property. The subject site is located on the
northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane,
758-5
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 3 of 6
which is a contained site surrounded by an existing
commercial development. The number of parking
spaces provided will be sufficient since the site will
share parking with the Floral Park Promenade.
Based on the Shared Parking Analysis, there will be
sufficient parking for peak parking demand for both
the new restaurant commercial development and the
existing shopping center.
ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial
property rights.
The granting of a variance is necessary to develop
the property with a well-designed commercial
development that is consistent with the Community
Commercial (C1) zoning district and provides
restaurant uses. Without the reduction in the required
parking, the project site would not be able to support
an economically viable development. Policy 2.2 of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan supports
commercial development that accommodates the
City's needs for goods and services.
iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding
property.
The granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
surrounding property because the proposed
commercial development complies with all
development standards set forth in Chapter 41 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code including setbacks and
landscaping. Lastly, a reduction of 52 required
parking stalls would be offset by the sharing of
parking stalls with the existing Floral Park Promenade
to the north.
iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City since the proposed
development is designed in conformance with the C1
zoning district development standards and General
Plan requirements. Policy 2.5 of the Land Use
758-6
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 4 of 6
Element of the General Plan states that new
development must balance the economic and fiscal
benefits of commercial development with its impacts
on the quality of life in the City. The reduction in the
number of required parking will not negatively affect
the surrounding commercial or residential properties.
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation
monitoring program prepared with respect to this Project. The City Council has, as a
result of its consideration 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, a mitigation negative declaration and
mitigation monitoring program adequately addresses the expected environmental
impacts of this Project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is
no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the Project will have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the
mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and directs that the
Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of
Orange in the manner required by law.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") 9 735.5(c)(1), the City
Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project
exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding
buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 9 711.2 and
Title XIV, CCR 9 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not
required in conjunction with this project.
Section 3. The City Council after conducting the public hearing hereby approves
Appeal No. 2004-08, approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 as conditioned in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein and approves Variance No. 2003-
05 as conditioned in Exhibit liB" attached hereto and incorporated herein. This decision
is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not
is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated October 4, 2004 and exhibits
attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 4. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the
Council's decision and these findings.
758-7
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 5 of 6
ADOPTED this
day of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Deputy City Attorney
AYES: Council members
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
,2004
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2004-081 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
758-8
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 6 of 6
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Commission, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform
Building 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 conditional use permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
A. Plannina Division
1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 04-
08.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. A combination of berms and hedges need to be provided in the front yard
setback area along the Bristol Street frontage to screen the drive-through
aisle and reduce glare.
MITIGATION MEASURES
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer showing the direction and means
of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the
street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare an
NPDES post-construction storm water management plan per Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices.
a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that
includes all Structural Best Management Practices.
Exhibit "A"
~~B~~
b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that
includes a description of all-applicable Structural and Non-
Structural Best Management Practices, which may apply to this
project.
6. Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is fitted with a grease
interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the Building Safety
Division of the City of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary
sewer system and regional water quality. Such grease interceptor shall be
regularly maintained so as to remain fully functional.
B. Police Department
1. Cash register must be visible from the street at all times and shall not be
obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent signage.
2. Window displays must be kept to a minimum for maximum visibility and
shall not exceed 25 percent of window coverage.
3. Window display and racks must be kept to a maximum height of three feet
including merchandise.
4. All payphones shall be located inside the premises and restricted to
outgoing calls only.
Exhibit "A"
pae.e 2 of 1
708-10
Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2004-05
Variance No. 2004-05 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Planning Commission, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building
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 variance.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the
revocation of the variance.
A. Plannina Division
1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 04-
08.
2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning
Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief
is available or the variance must be amended.
3. A parcel map, or other method of combining lots as approved by the
Planning Manager, shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
4. The driveway entrance from Memory Lane shall include an enhanced
pavement to match the proposed driveway on Bristol Street.
5. An enhanced pedestrian walkway shall be provided that links the
proposed commercial development with the existing Floral Park
Promenade parking lot. The pedestrian walkway shall include decorative
walkways and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning Manger prior to the issuance of building permits.
6. Two 36-inch box Canary Island Pines shall be located within the Floral
Park Promenade landscape setback along Memory Lane. A landscape
plan showing the location of the Canary Island Pines shall be submitted
for the review and approval of the Planning Manager prior to the issuance
of building permits.
7. The landscape planters around the existing Floral Park Promenade
monument signs shall include additional planting material. Staff shall
Exhibit "B"
~gs~t(1
approve a landscape plan showing the species, quantity and location of
the proposed plants.
8. RESERVED.
B. MITIGATION MEASURES
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer showing the direction and means
of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the
street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare an
NPDES post-construction storm water management plan per Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices.
a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that
includes all Structural Best Management Practices.
b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that
includes a description of all-applicable Structural and Non-
Structural Best Management Practices, which may apply to this
project.
11. Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is fitted with a grease
interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the Building Safety
Division of the City of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary
sewer system and regional water quality. Such grease interceptor shall be
regularly maintained so as to remain fully functional.
Exhibit "B"
~5~~!f2
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
~
~~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 9, 2004
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2003-17 AND VARIANCE NO.
2004-05 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED
PARKING FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED
D As Recommended
D As Amended
D Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
D Applicant's Request
D Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Carlos Rodriguez
'.
~ng Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2004-181.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-05 as conditioned.
3. Adopt a resolution amending Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 as
conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
Red Mountain Retail, Inc. is requesting approval of a variance to allow
a reduction in the off-street parking requirement and an amendment to an
existing conditional use permit for drive-through window service for a
new commercial development at 2701 North Bristol Street.
Property Description
The property is located within the Community Commercial (C1) zoning
district and has a General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial (GC) with a floor area ratio of 0.5. Surrounding land uses
include multi-family residential to the north; commercial and single-
family residential to the south; multi-family and commercial to the
west; and commercial, multi-family and single-family residential to the
east (Exhibits 1 and 2) .
EXHIBIT A
758-13
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Variance No. 2004-05
August 9, 2004
Page 2
The property is approximately 0.51 acres In size, rectangular in shape
and currently vacant. The property is located on the northeast corner
of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. Both streets are designated as
arterial streets in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Project Description
The project involves the construction of a new 5,000 square foot
building. Along with a Starbucks with drive-through window service, the
entire building will be comprised of eating establishment uses (Exhibits
3, 4 and 5). Additionally, an outdoor seating area will be provided for
Starbucks adj acent to the building along Bristol Street. Operating
hours will be from 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 6:30
a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Sunday.
The drive-through lane will include one menu reader board along with a
pick-up window where the food is transferred to the customers. As
required by code, an 80-foot separation between the food pick-up window
and the order board and another 80-foot separation between the order board
and entrance to the drive-through lane have been provided.
The proposed commercial development will comply with the commercial
landscape standards. The proposed plant material will be of high quality
and will visually enhance the development. Jacaranda, London Plane
Sycamores and Date Palm trees are proposed for the site and Canary Island
Pines will be included on the Floral Park Promenade landscape setback
along Memory Lane (Exhibit 6).
The design of the project demonstrates a high quality appearance
appropriate for the use and satisfies the design standards set forth in
the Urban Design Element. The building will have multi fa9ade
proj ections and varying roof pitches. A three-color exterior palette
along with stone veneer and concrete roof tiles will highlight the
building's architecture style. A hipped roof tower located on the
northwest corner of the building is proposed to mark the Starbucks entry
(Exhibi ts 7).
Analysis of the Issues
On August 18, 2003, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No.
2003-17 and Variance No. 2003-02 to allow a Starbucks with drive-through
window service and outdoor seating area. The proj ect consisted of a
758-14
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Variance No. 2004-05
August 9, 2004
Page 3
three unit, 3,292 square foot retail building with 1,600 square feet
dedicated to Starbucks. The remaining 1,692 square feet were intended
to be leased to retail uses. A total of 24 parking stalls were required
while only 22 were provided. No shared parking was proposed with the
adjacent Floral Park Promenade (Exhibit 8).
The original developer later sold the vacant parcel to Red Mountain
Retail, Inc., the owners of the Floral Park Promenade. Red Mountain is
proposing to revise the approved plans by altering the building
location, increasing the amount of square footage and changing the
retail uses to eating establishments. These changes require an
amendment to the approved conditional use permit. In addition, the
change from retail to eating establishments has created a larger parking
deficit and necessitates a parking variance.
Access to the project will be provided from Bristol Street and Memory
Lane. The driveway entrance on Bristol Street will enter onto the
Floral Park Promenade and will be shared by both developments. The
driveway entrance on Memory Lane will enter directly onto the new
commercial center. The shared driveway and the existing parking stalls
at the Floral Park Promenade parking stalls provide an opportunity to
share parking between the two developments.
A total of 50 parking spaces are required for the proposed building,
while only 20 parking spaces will be provided. Since parking for the
project will be shared with the Floral Park Promenade to the north, a
total of 370 parking stalls will be provided by both developments.
Fifteen parking stalls in Floral Park Promenade will be removed in order
to accommodate an integrated driveway, trash enclosure, landscape
planter and loading zone. The total number of stalls required for both
the new development and existing center is 422 parking stalls, which is
a 12 percent reduction in required parking. To support the variance,
the applicant has provided a shared parking analysis that calculates the
parking demand for both developments (Exhibit 9).
The shared parking analysis prepared by Austin-Foust Associates in May
2004 evaluated the supply and demand of parking using two independent
methodologies. The first evaluated the parking demand using widely
recognized shared parking statistics compiled by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI). The second evaluated the parking demand based on field
observations in December 2003, during which time all buildings on the
site were occupied and uses were in operation.
758-15
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Variance No. 2004-05
August 9, 2004
Page 4
The ULI analysis predicts a peak parking demand of 370 spaces at 1: 00
p.m. on weekdays. The combined shopping center, with the new project,
will accommodate this predicted demand. In contrast, however, the
observed parking analysis predicts a substantially lower demand of 127
spaces at 4 :30 p.m. The consultant believes that the observed parking
demand is lower than the ULI predicted demand because: the existing and
proposed uses in the center have a higher parking turnover than typical;
the center is more locally oriented in that travel patterns do not
follow traditional peak hour predictions; the ULI methodology is geared
to a more auto-oriented center; and, the center is patronized by
pedestrians from nearby residential areas. Accordingly, the Austin-
Foust Associates report found that there would be adequate parking under
either scenario.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of General Commercial. A goal of the Land Use Element is to
preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing
neighborhoods. The project has been designed to preserve the character
of the surrounding neighborhoods and will contribute to the general well
being of the community by providing food and beverage service to
residents and visitors. Additionally, the project will enhance the
economic stability of the area by converting a vacant site into a vital,
active commercial development.
On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to amend
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 and Variance No. 2004-05. After
receiving testimony from the public and project developer, the Planning
Commission continued the item for 45 days to allow the developer time to
consider revisions to the site plan. During the continuance, the
applicant met with members of the Planning Commission and staff to
discuss potential changes to the project. As a result of these
meetings, the applicant is proposing to modify the project to allow for
decorative paving/pedestrian walkways, planting two additional trees
along Memory Lane, and reducing the number of tenant spaces from four to
three (although the proposed square footage has not changed) .
In summary, the Starbucks with drive-through window service complies
with the provisions set forth in the Community Commercial (C1) zoning
district and Land Use Element of the General Plan. Approval of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 and Variance No. 2004-05
is recommended as conditioned (Exhibits 10 and 11) .
758-16
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
Variance No. 2004-05
August 9, 2004
Page 5
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental
Review No. 2004-181 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 12).
C-g~
Carlos Rodriguez
Assistant Planner I
~7.
Vince Fregoso,
Senior Planner
~fZ.
AICP
CR:JM
cr\reports\cup03-17var04-05.080904.pC
758-17
City of Orsnge
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1 f0
R1 R1 R1
[ff] R1
9
R1
,,~;:RnH R1 ARf
R1 R1 ~
"
A1
-B
C-SM
C1
C1-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
CR
GC
M1
M2
MO
o
P
PCD
PRD
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT CENTER
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
MILITARY OPERATIONS
OPEN SPACE
PROFESSIONAL
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
R1
R2
R3
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
R4
RE
SD
SP
~
~~
CUP 03-17/ VA 04-5
RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL GROUP
2701 NORTH BRISTOL STREET
IA
c0f'
- = 500 FEET
1" = 1000 FEET
P LAN N
N G
AND BUILD
EXHIBIT 1
758-18
N G
AGE N C Y
COMMERCIAL
MULTI FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
MFR
MFR
VACANT
....
W
w
a:
....
00
0.......0...............000.............. 0'"
00000000000 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000000000000000"" 0 0 0 0.0
...................0.....0.................. .
00" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000" 0 0 0
........0...0......0.........0.....0.00.0.0. .
00 <> 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0." 0 0 0 0 0'00" 0 0" 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0....0...0..............0...00000........... .
00000000000000000000" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0" 0 0 0
.......0...........0..0...00..0..... 0.........
000000000 <> 0 <> 0 Q 000. 00000000000000"" 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0
...............000........................0. .
00 <> 0 0 0"" Q 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000.00" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000000000
.......0.0....0................000.......... .
" 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
............................................ .
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
............................................ .
0000000000 g g g D 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 D D 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 D gO 0 gOO 0 D gOO g 0
............................................ .
00000 <> 0 0 0 D g 0 gOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 D 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
...............0...............0............ .
o Q 0 000000000000000000 <> 0 0 <> 000 gOO 0 gOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.....0..............0..0...0..0............ .
000000000000000000000 <> gOO 000 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 00000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
o Q 0 0 0 0 0 00000 <> gOO 0000000000 Q Q Q Q Q <> Q 0 0 Q 0 <> gOO 0 Q Q Q Q
...~........ ~~.....~..~..... ~........ ~~......
Q QQ<>QQ 0 000 QQQOOO OOOQOOOOO~ ~O Q~O~~~~ Q~OOOO~ O~ QO
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :R:~: 8::PJ ::4::(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: f!.:A: R. :K::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :i?: fi.:o:k-i :i:: :'N::4: :0: :E::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ <> 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Q 0 O~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ Q ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .
0000 0 ~ 0 ~ Q 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 O~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 <> ~ 0 <> 0 0" 0 0 ~
~ . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. <> 0 0 0 ~ <> <> <> 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ <>~ ~ <> ~ ~ ~ <> ~ <> 0 <> a a ~ 0 0 <> <> 0 0 0 0 <> 0 <> <>
....................................0....... .
. <> <> 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 <> 0 0 <> 0 0 Q 0 <> <> 0 <> <> 0 <>., 0 0 <> <> 0 0 Q 0 0 <> <> 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <> <>
. . 0 . . . . . . ~ . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ., ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 0
..0......................................... .
D" <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 Q 0 Q 0 0 D 0 aDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 000 Q 0 <> 0 0 0
............................................ .
000000000000000 Q 0 0 0 0 a <> 0 a 0000000 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 <> 0 0
...........................0................ .
000000 Q 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <>0 0 D 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 00<>
...........................0................ .
0000 00 QOO~ ~~~O~<>OO~OO~~~ o~~a ~~~ Q~~ 0 ~OO OaOoo~oo
0............................... .
. 0 <> 0 <> 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 <> 0 0 Q 0 <> 0 0 0 ~ 0
. ....0.............. .........0.
0000000 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 <> 0 <> 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0..0.............. 0......0.0.
., ., 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ., 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....0............0. 0..........
0., 0 0 ao 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
................... .......0...
00000000 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 00 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ...........
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
00 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 00 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: 'C/o'MME'R'C;,i:4't:::::::
. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . ~ . . . . . v ~ . . . . .
.,., 0 0.,., 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . ~ . . . . .
OOOOOQOOOO ~oo~~o~~~OQ~O~~o"OOQ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
., 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 <> ~ <> ~ 0 <> <> <> 0 0 <> <> 0 Q <> 0 0 0 <> ~ <> 0 0
.........0.................... .
,,<>O~<>O~O~~O OQ~Q<>~~<>OOQ<><>~~~~~<><>
.........0...............0.... .
>-
..........
-<(
~-
~~
lU
lUQ
.....-
QlCl)
~lU
_Cl:
CI)
SFR
COMMERCIAL .J COMMERCIAL
~.
0 '" SFR SFR
.... It'
en w
- a: w
a: SFR SFR
m SFR m ~
z SFR =>>
Iff SFR 0
~ ...J
MEMORY
LANE
A
CUP 03-17/ VA 04-5
RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL GROUP
2701 NORTH BRISTOL STREET
P LAN N
N G
AND
B U
L D
N G
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
758-19
A
eW
! I
. ~1!iU .!
'15;11 II
- I. I ~
. _._LJ.1 I ill "
~ .,,~ a:l!~~g drj~~~ U7 g~, i ~ b
~ I Z
=s. ....111 11111 ,III" 2 >-
~ ~~~~ ~:i:i~~~ ~m~~ B' \:!
~ I~I! ii~1I iIillf I ~ 1
- "'~ ",""", B II~ ~
~ .. ";~~ ~~; IIi i '
IIII n III I ~I ;ihl
...:> ....N... VlN"'S I II It
133l1J.S 101SI~8 'N WLZ
AJL 'JlVD[ NIIVJl.NlllOM <<nmI III. I
.11 n
~m~
un
ilsPd
I · . i
ii;:!d
=
~ ~~i
sdi~
-' ili
~ i~
o.u ..
Z i!
~ .~
,i.
~I.
II;
~~~~~~:
~~
>:": Ii:: i.'! ..:.;
aNTI ..ulOwaw ~
IL
.
g
J<::;
)0'';
;'';
J
%
=
a
~
i.
q
i
Eo-<
rz::I
rz::I
~
Eo-<
en
.....:l
o
Eo-<
en
....
~
c::l
~
Ii
II
~
I','
,.
j
1/
z
<(
-l
a..
W
I-
Vi
I
':.
. ex:
.~~I;I .o.!
Yo) 'YtN V.1.HWS
.l33H1.S '1QlSIII "N lOa
Xl'lVJUI NIV lNllOW <I311
------------------------iiiii1liiiil--------~
!~ III
11&1
;111 I
-..... .
~I
----,
....
. .1!>:
.
II
I
..... d. II
:....~ : SII111
I
I ~ I.
I
I
II
- II
I
d
1Ia
I I
I I
dO.L.
I I II;
III;ql
IlIcld
!!uul
Ii
I Iii
11"1
II:
,I!
~II
II.
~
a>~iVVA 04-5
i.t!l..n!IT 4
II · B!:. D 1.1 I i
..Ii,ill.1 I ~. I
I ;i;I i I i I. I II
., i
~I
~ ~:
....H
g Ii
~ II
C> I,
I I
II
Iii~
"-
.... .... ....
-;...",
J
~ ~t, il
I ~ !!
~ J ~ ~ -~
~~al_2; !
-
· II~OO - IJ ...t:tc tG
: ~ ~ =', ~j~ ~
, I~~u
, i] . . ~,
".,
.....
!~ '.
j;
l
~.
.-.
l'ft-.
~
~.., ~_ __-, I
1- ~ Iii
Pi :.~~; ~ y
o-'"...t- :
o~ ,
,
I
I
I
-_____J
I
I
I
I
[ -_____...J
(
15
il
0-
~
, ~..
"0/
..... . . .....
(0
...0 ....N... ...IN...S I'. H
133lU.S lOlSI!lB 'N Loa ' I
AJI.'1lnI!l.NWJr..NlllOIN mm I II
pic Iii
.11 I'
.....
....~
r;l~Q
~~lLJ
'N
-
o .
.t'o'
..
.t 1.11-. .~'. ~
~. .... 01>. ~ ... ~"...., 1""-'
~ ~ r--r-~~-t-I
Ir==l -=l _~
I
I
o \
II
II ~
I, ~F -\ - i ~
.! ~ <~ ',I,'! III I
! I a cl iii
'?/ I
fir I
~1-- ~ IlL JI ~
-I_~r II
4! ~ II
..0.1 .. .l.... ..... .0', I......
....t .'-.
~l~
~
~
I
: I
..Jb ~u~
. .~
.L-,_
.-.
"..
qJ
I
,
1
1
I
,
L
0'1
!VII
0,11
I ,;
I
0--'1
o
r!
....
-- ,
~ I
-"-
\S> I
~..~
I~
,. I
I~ iDJ
ii ~
/0
-:r.;;-
b!
o 11- ~
,
~, :.
o "
I
J
-
J 8
7CJlRQ90NA 04-5
I "~)(AfBIT 5
~i
,....
~
1
~.
i
.
-0
. ~~
~
; ~
. i
,
~
;
-0
~
J
~
~
z
-0
I
I
i
V',sV'
S;;fF~LL(v liJ xv,! OvH-5U(Y I P ]NOI-I.d
"}0026 'o'1N'<!OJI1\f:) >:'lGI~VNV
"i ~llns '(Th NOlSNlM J 12e2
~ugwg0eueV'J pgrOJd
u0ls:dO "$ 0uluueld ~Jed
:dJnp:d~IY::>JV gde::>spu"1
AtIOW3:W 1>
:.0":
~::.~
+
I
I 0
I
I
I
1 J,
1
)1
I
I
1
1
''1
1
o
)
'0--
",lJl s.a~!~V 9
4'SJ!~1
dnOl:181IV.131::1 NIV1NnOV'l 031::1
VINI::IO:lIlV:) 'VNV V1NVS
t 1331::11S 101SI1::18 H1I::ION ~OLG
,!!2.1N3V'ld013A30 lIV.131::1 VNV V1NVS
e
c..
>- -'UJ
w :!ill.
~~~ e I-<tz
mcjC!; .Q [h~:5
;'bee; i'i c..>Clll. D
., o>Z '5 ZZ
Q)'- o<t
-"'.0 en
CIlOlO Ol c..>-'
ClCl-, Cl en '5
~ ".. '.. : .:
~~~~~~
.I) '" _..... " '"
El: :,'
s .
! i i Ii
f=l ~
I-
W
-.J
<.(
CL
gHH
~~!jli
~tj
~~
'~
">
~~
.g
ill:,
~~
~~
0"
~~
0~
:g~
5e
.>
~
"'
g@
-i -j
'* ;,
~~
~i
~!
"3
1;;'&
~~
I-
Z
<.(
.-J
CL
.,
. 0
~ t~ -~
JIB
~~
~J:
~ ~ -~ '~ ~
~~~,~,~,~
~ G g " C5 (l
~lijl1
o ~ :.; ~ ':i ;;;
~~~~~;~
o i "H
CL
o d
g: ~
lG 13 8 ~ (g ~ *
~;;~.~U
z <
, "
'"
-ct
,-----+---::---------:-1
g c! ~
I ~ ~~ : I
~1 Y
I \\ I
'I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J I
I
I
I I
1
I
_J
i
I
I
I
,"
L-._~~....,....,.....:.....
.... ....
~:
(
~
L-------i
7=CC===~ . ) I.
" I
l 2:. 0 L_
et:
)cc=~il
n L
.'
01
:
:
F',.~_,
i /I:"I':~
I VlC>
i ~2
:~ &t
d'll,
0/ I 'I
1 ".
, I I
: I
-i!
!
i
':;i:"
I
.C
,.'
'.
)===~,~,:=-=.c
)
~~O4-5
L
C>
<.!l
~
~
~
~
~
~
lf1
.....:l
o
~
lf1
.....
~
(:Q
&
I .
.JI;!i ~ .!
,. fli II
UiiIlD Iii
'-I i'
...::1 ....N... ...IN...S
133lilS 10lSI1l8 'N loa
AJI.'llVDI NIIVmm((])~ mrm
I iIH~~ mt ~
!.. ~ b J <I:
Ui !I ~ i I i
Ii.
Q . i t ii !
B ~ ~ II ~ III II
'" I~ 2 h ; I ~ ; II I I! Ii .
~ In; nd d. ~ is ~II nHa II
~ Ii n nn i;; iI: :nn i: ~I; !i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~: :
n
~
>-
""
'"
:I:
'"
Z ~ 111 ~
...
0
~ ijo II Iii II
~ !; I,I! I,
-< IJ I~ I~ I;
'"
"" II . .
l- @ ~ ~ @ i
:i
!t." "
Jl"
~Lt.....""
/L W
z
0 z
i= 0 Z
<I: i= 0
> <I: i=
W > <I:
--l W >
W --l W
:r: W --l
W
f- f-
e:::. (fl. f-
~ Wi it ';2'i
z_ 3::_
.;l- I")
14. 04-5
EXHIBIT 7
CD
:::IJ
-
en
-i
o
r
1
CA-
-i
:::IJ
m
m
-i
!ll!:ti~
L~}>Cii
}> ::j
r- Z
G)
o -
o
~-~--
-'
1-,>;-__
'"
_"<-__=-.---l-___
I ~ : ~ 1-- ---
j "., , ~z
"m
,E
-Q
-'~
IU;~ ~~ --
".--==---------~~----
g~
l>{J\" 1I ~
~t:~ffi~qJ~~
~5~~~~~~
"'~lIc6mEm
CJam~mS~~
;J!~~~~i!~~
~e~Ol'~O~
':>0'
m
z
"
"
Z
()
m
o
()
a
z
()
;1)
~
m
~
@
CD
Ib'
-------------,IL-
-,~
am
Q<
ma
o()
o~
"r
'm
~~
an
--.:~
-
\P
6
"
~
G)
"z
T--
lJj~()
R~~~
(J)Ql>m
-<::!~
W~~8
l>E---t-;t
~~~~
m
2':>'-0'''
MEMORY
.
(
I
~
~
\l'
-+-
~ 80' TO r'.lc::Kl..!E WINQQW_
~
u>z
tia
Zr
9
,
~
41'
IT ~
b':>' I
! II'
--I
:DOl :D I I
mOl m
m-lO 0-1 I
~(f) :> t
,"T1 r=
0>
a
,
a
a
;1)
0
m
;1)
01
a
"
Q~ ,~
~Q
~z
G\
01"
S6
(),
7'"
Eti
~J:
.--~
r
(j\
()
II
23'
50'-6" ~
11'
PwG\ ~ i{]
~-tcZlJqJum
()~~~gt:~~
~l>~26~~~
o~m~ms~~
;n~~~~i!~~
~5~O~~O~
o
;1)
~~
"
~
(J>
~ffi
j;E
r
7'
t
28'-0'''
38'-0'''
5';O'W-O'
I"
'0
LAN~
EXHIBIT 8
75S:.~Sf4
10'
-1'---,f
2.5' '3.5' i 3'
7"-tf-~~===: - _ --7"
~ II: P-U: I
~--=
- ---
iI'J
ur-
ILO
-t-~
. IvJ
~-=
-"---
IvJ
,--~
I ~
I '
1\]1
~ -=--
.1vJ
-1 n~_
IQ
1
IJJ
~_-:-
iI'J
--T=
10,1
IJJ
-1]
pn
---=IL
()
,
.~
~
.- --~-_. ~:-
1~-l--10 JOII
I+-~-- ---
12,1
,(").
.
.
31'~011 30'~O" 4'B"
I I ,
-- - -- ---r---Il'~o~- ---- nll-'~-olt~f
--(--- t ----. i-fr ()J
-~d-F==-4...: =
, . ~
()
411
ll1
-- -)-
~
:Om
mo
)>-10
)>(f)
III
:00:>
m(J1
(0-10
~(f)
III
:00:>
m~
O-lr\.)
~(f)
III
~
~
I I
I '
~~
I I
';! I!
B
--f- 0-
I
I
i
,
--~
jlvJ
i~
H
, .
-,
,
I I I
I , i
10' ~ '311 ! 8' ~8" 3,il,I~811
-- /- - _-m_--f-,I_/--
22' ~4"
3'1
--I - 7
I I
r II'
, I
3"
-{ -/
IIBII
--- 7/-
I 10'
,(-----
13'~4"
0S'
7 5ee~~f6
.
.
i
I
~
o
~
g
~g
. ~ ~ C3 g
g <~ ~ ~ 0 ~
< \!3 Z >. ~ ~ ; ~ 1I3
i i8 i ~~ n ~ il II ! i I
," ~ I~ -~ i ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ .;'
j<ltl: ~ ~~ ~~ g ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~."
o ww:g ~~ ~~ i~ ~ ~! :)~g ~ llf;~ ~.. E
Z ~ ~~ ~~~! ~. z~ .. ~~ ~~f 2 ; ~o i a ,
w ~I~oi~ ~ii :! !il ~~ ~ !i ~~i ~ ~ if ~ I Eli1
f ~ wj ~ ~..J~....C!i ':'ulS _lD Q. ~i ~~" ~ Ie "'~ F? w
\....,J 0 r v"),
~ . · 0 '* @ 0 \;..01 ~ 0 0 I:> .
-------------------------------------------------~
3NVl A80~3~ _
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
~!
w!
WI
a: i z
~'
wi ::i
, 0....
-.JI
Oi ~
tn i (3
- I (j)
a: i 0
enj Zi
, <(
I-.J
,
I-.J
I <(
':J
Iv. l-
i II; 0....
IIIi ~
IliVl z
iills
"
II
,.
75S--2f1
. e
/
Sl
L_______
~----------~ /
,IOl
, , , / / ,
, , / ,
, , / ,
, , / ,
, /
V ,
/, , ,
/ / , ,
, I
, , I
, ,
-ru.
Z Z
0 0
I-- I--
<( <(
> >
W
.....J W
W .....J
W
I-- I--
en
W en
3: I <(
I W
I I
L_____....l
.r
,Sl
,,,"
,0,
/'----
,L
~mJ
,S ,Sl
z
o
I--
<(
>
W
.....J
W
J:
I--
::>
o
en
c
1'------------,
i ,<;;Z
ml
-
!=:
r
- --
/
I II
~
I
I
I
_Lu,.
/ ,
/ ,
/ I
'\, // I
V ,
/, I
//', I
/ , ,
// ',I
~~--------~~
.
75ag:2~4
.
iLu,
: I
" I
I, I
, I
, I
__J
l________
z
o
I--
<(
>
W
.....J
W
J:
I--
a:
o
z
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
Parking Analysis
May 2004
wr~ AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INe.
CUP 03-17NA 04-5
EXH,IBIT 9
7~Bo!29
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
PARKING ANALYSIS
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 North Tustin A venue
Santa Ana, California 92705-7827
(714) 667-0496
May 13, 2004
1SSfJ30
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
PARKING ANALYSIS
The expansion of the Floral Park Promenade includes the construction of a 5,000 square foot
building immediately adjacent to the intersection of Bristol Street and Memory Lane, The proposed
project will include 1,500 square feet as a Starhucks with the remaining 3,500 square feet as other food
uses, illustrated in Figure 1. A parking study is required as part of development of the project, since the
proposed parking supply will theoretically be insufficient to meet the City of Santa Ana's parking code
requirements for each individual use,
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Floral Park Promenade is located at the northeast corer of Bristol Street and Memory Lane in
the City of Santa Ana containing a 74,704 square foot mixed-use development. The center provides 370
parking spaces to meet the parking demand for the approved uses. The following table summarizes the
existing uses and the related parking. Access to the project is provided via driveway on Bristol Street and
Memory Lane that allow full access movements into and out of the project site.
FLORAL PARK PROMENADFE
Land Use
Office
Retail
Medical Office
Restaurant
Child Care
Size
2,900 SF
41,761 SF
7,893 SF
12,730 SF
9,420 SF
Sub total
Req Parkin"
8.7
208,89
47.3
127.3
47.0
439.1
Approved minor exception (87-02)
TOTAL
-17
422
PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS
The parking analysis for the Floral Park Promenade involves determining the expected parking
needs based on the size and type of proposed development versus the proposed parking supply. On that
basis, this parking study analysis evaluates the project's parking requirements based on the City of Santa
Ana zoning code, application of a shared parking methodology and the observed existing usage of the
parking in the center as a shared parking use.
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
75B~31
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
89900 I rpt.doc
~;
:!INV1
AliON3N 1>
ll.l
....
:::I
"'l
ii:
j
p..
~
Cii
tJ
t.a
......
o
"
p..
g ~
..... "0
~~
_ o:l
01.0
'u 8
~~
';;:0\
_00
'"
:l
&
.~
'"
:l
-<
...
r.<
r.<
f: N
I. 00
,l ...:l
0
...
00
s::
CQ
Q;'I
..-, ;:r: ,'''''
.ii'! -:.
I
I. lu z
Il .1 0<
I 0-
,
...
7SS~32
ll.l
"0
'"
t::
ll.l
8 '1;;
....;..
p....
~~
p.."'l
..... t::
E:J;l
o ....
- '"
~p..
PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the Floral Park Promenade
expansion project, parking demand was first calculated using the City of Santa Ana zoning code. The
City parking code requirements typically treat each use in the retail center as a "stand alone" use at
maximum demand as opposed to an integrated part of the mixed-use center as summarized in the
following table.
CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Land Use
Office
Retail
Medical Office
Restaurant
Req Parking
3 spaces/IOOO SF
5 spaces/IOOO SF
6 spaces/IOOO SF
IO spaces/lOOO SF
Direct application of City parking codes to the Floral Park Promenade expansion project, a total
of 50 parking new spaces will be required for the proposed project (Restaurant 5,000 sf x 10 spaces/lOOO
sf = 50 spaces). Based on the City's parking code, 422 parking spaces would be needed to accommodate
the proposed expansion.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking publication, shared parking is
defined as a parking space that can be used to serve two or more indi vidual land uses without conflict or
encroachment. Given that restaurant/food uses have peak demand periods (afternoon and evenings) that
differ from retail uses (early afternoon), it is appropriate to utilize the shared parking concept to forecast
the overall parking demand for the site.
The ULI Shared Parking publication provides hourly parking accumulation rates for uses
expressed as a percentage of the peak demand for that use for the day. Retail uses have a peak demand
during the 12:00-2:00 PM period on weekdays and between 2:00-4:00 PM on Saturdays. Office uses
experience a peak parking demand between 10:00 AM-12:00 PM for a typical weekday. Restaurant uses
typically have a peak parking demand between 12:00-2:00 PM and during the evening from 6:00-9:00
PM. A child care facility is not included in the current ULI publication. The hourly parking demand for
the child care use was derived from actual information provided by the current TuterTime facility.
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
3
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
899001rpt.doc
t5sr~33
Table 1 summarizes the forecast shared parking demand for the Floral Park Promenade center
with the inclusion of the proposed project. An examination of the table indicates that 439 parking spaces
would be forecast, a shortage of 17 parking spaces. Presently, the site has a minor exception (87-02) to
reduce the required parking by 17 spaces.
OBSERVED SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
Parking for the existing center was observed and is summarized in the following table, An
examination of the table indicates that the maximum observed parking demand for the center was 127
spaces at 4:30 PM. The center presently has a total of 370 spaces available to meet the parking demand
for the existing retail center. Based on the observed parking demand, a surplus of 243 spaces are
available on-site.
OBSERVED PARKING DEMAND- FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
1O:30A II:OOA 1I:30A 12:00 I:OOP 2:00P 3:00P 3:30P 4:00P
107 110 III 120 118 112 112 124 122
5:00P 5:30P
124 117
Date: December, 2003 multiple days including Saturday
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Two independent analyses of peak parking demand were conducted for this study, The first
involved a detailed examination of the concept of shared parking for mixed use retail centers. The Urban
Land Institute (ULI) produced a widely recognized and trusted report on the "sharing" of parking that
occurs in large retail centers. The ULI parking analysis shown in Table 1 indicates that a maximum of
370 parking spaces would be occupied if this were a typical and relatively large retail center.
Further, based on the result of the observed shared parking analysis, the center uses only a
maximum 127 spaces during the peak parking demand period and sufficient surplus parking is available
that would be sufficient to accommodate the addition of the proposed 5,000 square feet of food uses, The
current noon usage is 120 spaces and the 5;00 PM usage is 124 spaces. The addition of 50 more vehicles
(the code requirement for 5,000 square feet of restaurant) brings the peak parking total to 174 spaces or
only 47 percent of the total parking available.
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
4
Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.
89900 I rpt.doc
15g~34
Table 1
ULl- SHARED PARKING SUMMARY
Project
Land Use
Office
Med Office
Retail
City
Project Parking
Size Re uirement
Total Spaces
Re uired
2.9 3 rrSF
7.89 6.0rrSF
41.76 5,OrrSF
12.73 10.0rrSF
47 1 LOC
9
47
209
127
47
Restaurant
Child Care
Total
422
with minor exception (87-02) [-17 spaces]
WEEKDA Y HOURLY ACCUMULATION OF PARKING
Hour Office Med Office Retail Restaurant Child Care
OfDa % S aces % S aces % S aces % S aces %
6:00 AM 3% 0 3% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
7:00 AM 20% 2 20% 9 8% 17 2% 2 75%
8:00 AM 63% 6 63% 30 18% 38 5% 6 100%
9:00 AM 93% 8 93% 44 42% 88 10% II 75%
10:00 AM 100% 9 100% 47 68% 142 20% 22 25%
11:00 AM 100% 9 100% 47 87% 182 30% 33 8%
12:00 NOON 90% 8 90% 42 97% 203 100% 110 8%
1:00PM 90% 8 90% 42 100% 209 100% 110 2%
2:00 PM 97% 9 97% 46 97% 203 60% 66 2%
3:00 PM 93% 8 93% 44 95% 199 60% 66 50%
4:00 PM 77% 7 77% 36 87% 182 50% 55 75%
5:00 PM 47% 4 47% 22 79% 165 70% 77 100%
6:00 PM 23% 2 23% 11 82% 171 90% 99 100%
7:00 PM 7% 1 7% 3 89% 186 100% 110 20%
8:00 PM 7% 1 7% 3 87% 182 100% 110 0%
9:00 PM 3% 0 3% 1 61% 127 100% 110 0%
10:00 PM 3% 0 3% 32% 67 90% 99 0%
11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 13% 27 70% 77 0%
12:00
MIDNIGHT 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 50% 55 0%
MAXIMUM PARKING DEMAND:
370 spaces at I :00 PM
SOURCE: Urban Land Institute, 1987
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
5
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
899001rpt.doc
15S~35
Total
Shared
0 1
35 65
47 127
35 186
12 232
4 275
4
325
24 341
35 315
47 315
47 330
9 309
0 296
0 238
0 167
0 104
0 55
The second approach taken to evaluate the peak parking was to perform actual field counts of the
existing parking lot. These counts were collected in December, 2003 when the retail was fully occupied
including the current vacant market. The results of those parking counts conducted on multiple days
including Saturday in December, 2003 revealed a maximum of 127 spaces were ever occupied at anyone
time, With a total of 370 spaces available this means that even at the shopping center's peak parking
demand, there were still over 240 empty spaces, more than adequate to accommodate the 50 spaces
needed for the proposed restaurant uses.
The big difference in the peak parking demand predicted by the ULI shared parking analysis (i.e.,
370 spaces) clearly suggests that this retail center is not typical of the large mixed use centers included in
the nationwide ULI study. Floral Park Promenade is a diverse mixture of retail, office, consultants,
restaurant and other non-typical retail uses that produce a parking demand much different than the typical
retail and office developments. This is clearly evident by the nearly empty parking lot (127 spaces out of
370 used) even with all spaces in the center occupied, while the ULI shared use procedure indicates the
entire parking lot would be filed. Although the two analyses produce radically different estimates of peak
usage, they do both confirm that the existing 370 spaces is adequate.
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
6
Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.
899001rpt.doc
iS~~36
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
MONDAY
Time 4:30
Spaces Occupied 127
Time 5:00
Spaces Occupied 124
Time 5:30
Spaces Occupied 117
TUESDAY
Time 4:00
Spaces Occupied 86
Time 4:30
Spaces Occupied 86
WEDNESDAY
Time 10:30
Spaces Occupied 107
Time 11:00
Spaces Occupied 110
Time 11:30
Spaces Occupied 111
Time 12:00
Spaces Occupied 121
THURSDA Y
Time 2:45
Spaces Occupied 124
Time 3:00
Spaces Occupied 124
Time 3:30
Spaces Occupied 122
FRIDAY
Time 11:45
Spaces Occupied 120
Time 12:00
Spaces Occupied 118
Time 12:40
Spaces Occupied 107
Time 1:00
Spaces Occupied 112
SATURDAY
Time
Spaces Occupied 72
Time
Spaces Occupied 112
Time
Spaces Occupied 114
7
7~S'~37
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
89900 I rpt.doc
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE (cont)
MONDA Y
Time 10:45
Soaces Occupied 94
Time 11:00
Soaces Occupied 95
Time 11:30
Spaces Occupied 110
Time 2:00
Spaces Occupied 112
Time 3:30
Spaces Occupied 122
Time 3:00
Spaces Occupied 127
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
899001rpt.doc
8
f5ao:~8
Location/Day
GOLDENWEST & YORKTOWN
MONDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
MAIN & ORANGE
MONDA Y
WEDNESDAY
TIIURSDA Y
FRIDA Y
BEACH & 405 FWY
MONDAY
WEDNESDAY
TIIURSDAY
FRIDAY
ELLIS & BROOKHURST
MONDAY
WEDNESDA Y
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
Roral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
STARBUCKS ACTIVITY SURVEY
--- PEOPLE ---
IN OUT
TIME
8:30 AM
10: 10 AM
8:30 AM
9:20AM
8:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:15 PM
2:00 AM 22 14
2:30AM 8 6
4:00 AM 4
4:30 AM 2 0
7:30 PM 6
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
8:30AM
11:30 AM
12:30 PM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:00 AM
9:45 AM
10:30 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
4:30 AM
8:00 AM
8;30 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
9
1S~~~9
PEOPLE
CARS
18
24
26
22
24
18
22
24
26
6
22
24
28
26
28
22
16
22
18
22
14 18
16 19
18
18 16
12 18
8 13
12 19
13 16
24
22
24
22
8
12
Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.
899001rpt.doc
Location/Day
STARBUCKS ACTIVITY SURVEY
--- PEOPLE m
TIME IN OUT
11:00 AM
I 1:30 AM
PEOPLE
15
14
CARS
17TH & YORBA
SATURDAY 10:00 AM 18 22 19
10:30 AM 8 7 24
11:00 AM 4 0
2 2
11:30 AM 20
Floral Park Promenade
Parking Analysis
10
75B:40
Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.
899001 rpt.doc
VC~/2(;)03 MEMORY LN BRI~"'''''
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
MONDAY
TIME 4:30
SPACES
OCCUPIED 127
TIME 5:00
OCCUPIED 124
TIME 5:30
OCCUPIED 117
TUESDAY
TIME 4:00PM
OCCUPIED 86
TIME 4:30
OCCUPIED 86
WEDNESDAY
TIME 10:30
OCCUPIED 107
TIME 11:00
OCCUPIED 110
TIME 11:30
OCCUPIED 111
TIME 12:00
OCCUPIED 121
THURSDAY
TIME 2:45
OCCUPIED 124
TIME 3:00
OCCUPIED 124
TIME 3:30
OCCUPIED 122
FRIDAY
TIME 11:45
OCCUPIED 120
TIME 12:00
OCCUPIED 118
TIME 12:40
OCCUPIED 107
TIME 1:00
OCCUPIED 112
SATURDAY
TIME
OCCUPIED 72
TIME
OCCUPIED 112
TIME
OCCUPIED 114
MONDAY
TIME 10:45
OCCUPIED 94
TIME 11:00
OCCUPIED 95
TIME 11:30
OCCUPIED 110
TIME 2:00
OCCUPIED 112
TIME 3:30
OCCUPIED 122
TIME 3:00
OCCUPIED 127 1S~:41
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
August 9, 2004
Page 1 of 2
Findings of Fact
A.
Will the proposed
contribute to the
community?
use provide
general well
a service
being of
or
the
facility which will
ne ighborhood or the
The proposed Starbucks with drive-through window service will
provide a service to the community by providing an additional
restaurant opportunity in the area. Additionally, the drive-
through lane will provide an added convenience to customers
using the coffee house.
B. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house will not be detrimental to
persons residing and working in the area as the on-site
vehicular circulation system is designed to avoid conflicts on-
and off - si te. A combination of berms and hedges will be
provided in the front yard setback area along the Bristol Street
frontage to screen the drive-through aisle and reduce glare.
The on-site circulation will allow additional stacking within
the site thereby avoiding impacts to Memory Lane and the
vicinity.
C.
Will the proposed
stability or future
the area?
use adversely affect the present economic
economic development of properties surrounding
The proposed project complies with Policy 2.5 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan as it provides the economic
benefits of commercial development to the City without
impacting the quality of life for surrounding residents. The
Starbucks coffee house with drive-through window service will
generate City tax revenue and employment in the community.
The use provides services that compliment surrounding
businesses and, as conditioned, will not adversely affect
economic development or stability of the area.
EXHIBIT 10
75'8-42
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17
August 9, 2004
Page 2 of 2
D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in this chapter for such use.
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-through window
service will be in compliance with the applicable sections of
Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code. The use will also comply
with all applicable county and state provisions, including
health codes and ADA requirements.
E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-through window
service is in an area designated General Commercial (GC) in the
General Plan. The project complies with the Land Use Element
and Urban Design Element of the General Plan and will not
negatively affect them. Lastly, the use is consistent with
the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district that allows
retail and service uses.
758-43
Variance No. 2004-05
August 91 2004
Page 1 of 2
Findings of Fact
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
propertYI including sizel shape 1 topography 1 location or
surroundings 1 that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is
found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
minor exception with the intent and purpose of the provisions of
this Chapter.
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject
property. The subject site is located on the northeast corner
of Bristol Street and Memory Lane 1 which is a contained site
surrounded by an existing commercial development. The number
of parking spaces provided will be sufficient since the site
will share parking with the Floral Park Promenade. Based on
the Shared Parking Analysis 1 there will be sufficient parking
for peak parking demand for both the new restaurant commercial
development and the existing shopping center.
B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The granting of a variance is necessary to develop the property
with a well-designed commercial development that is consistent
with the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district and provides
restaurant uses. Without the reduction in the required
parking 1 the project site would not be able to support an
economically viable development. Policy 2.2 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan supports commercial development
that accommodates the City/s needs for goods and services.
C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property
because the proposed commercial development complies with all
development standards set forth in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code including setbacks and landscaping. LastlYI a
reduction of 52 required parking stalls would be offset by the
sharing of parking stalls with the existing Floral Park
Promenade to the north.
758-44
Variance No. 2004-05
August 9, 2004
Page 2 of 2
D. That the granting of a varlance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City since the proposed development is
designed in conformance with the C1 zoning district development
standards and General Plan requirements. Policy 2.5 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan states that new
development must balance the economic and fiscal benefits of
commercial development with its impacts on the quality of life
in the City. The reduction in the number of required parking
will not negatively affect the surrounding commercial or
residential properties.
758-45
AUGUST 9, 2004
PAGE 1 OF2
Conditions for Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 is approved subject to compliance, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission, with all
applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California
Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building 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 conditional use
permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional
use permit.
A. Planning Division
1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review
DP No. 04-08.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will
determine if administrative relief is available or the
conditional use permit must be amended.
3. A combination of berms and hedges need to be provided in the
front yard setback area along the Bristol Street frontage to
screen the drive-through aisle and reduce glare.
Mitigation Measures
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval a surface
drainage/grading/erosion control plan prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer showing the direction and means of flow to the
adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adj acent to all property lines. Drainage
routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and
through the curb.
EXHIBIT 11
758-46
AUGUST 9, 2004
PAGE20F2
5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit I the applicant shall
prepare an NPDES post-construction storm water management plan
per Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that
includes all structural and non-structural Best Management
Practices.
a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan
that includes all Structural Best Management Practices.
b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan
that includes a description of all-applicable Structural
and Non-Structural Best Management Practices I which may
apply to this project.
6. Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is
fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as
designated by the Building Safety Division of the City of
Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary sewer
system and regional water quality. Such grease interceptor
shall be regularly maintained so as to remain fully
functional.
B. Police Department
1. Cash register must be visible from the street at all times and
shall not be obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent
signage.
2. Window displays must be kept to a minimum for maximum
visibility and shall not exceed 25 percent of window coverage.
3. Window display and racks must be kept to a maximum height of
three feet including merchandise.
4. All payphones shall be located inside the premises and
restricted to outgoing calls only.
758-47
AUGUST 9, 2004
PAGE 1 OF2
Conditions for Approval
Variance No. 2004-05 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Commission, with all applicable sections of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the
Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building 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 variance.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and
every condition may result in the revocation of the variance.
A. Planning Division
1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review
DP No. 04-08.
2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will
determine if administrative relief is available or the
variance must be amended.
3. A parcel map, or other method of combining lots as approved by
the Planning Manager, shall be approved and recorded prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
4. The driveway entrance from Memory Lane shall include an
enhanced pavement to match the proposed driveway on Bristol
Street.
5. An enhanced pedestrian walkway shall be provided that links
the proposed commercial development with the existing Floral
Park Promenade parking lot. The pedestrian walkway shall
include decorative walkways and shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Planning Manger prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. Two 36-inch box Canary Island Pines shall be located within
the Floral Park Promenade landscape setback along Memory Lane.
A landscape plan showing the location of the Canary Island
pines shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits.
758-48
AUGUST 9, 2004
PAGE20F2
7. The landscape planters around the existing Floral Park
Promenade monument signs shall include additional planting
material. Staff shall approve a landscape plan showing the
species, quantity and location of the proposed plants.
8. The four proposed tenant spaces shown on the southwest corner
of the site plan (Exhibit 3) shall be reduced to three tenant
spaces. The overall square footage may remain unchanged.
Mitigation Measures
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval a surface
drainage/grading/erosion control plan prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer showing the direction and means of flow to the
adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adj acent to all property lines. Drainage
routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and
through the curb.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
prepare an NPDES post-construction storm water management plan
per Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that
includes all structural and non-structural Best Management
Practices.
a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan
that includes all Structural Best Management Practices.
b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan
that includes a description of all-applicable Structural
and Non-Structural Best Management Practices, which may
apply to this project.
11. Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is
fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as
designated by the Building Safety Division of the City of
Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary sewer
system and regional water quality. Such grease interceptor
shall be regularly maintained so as to remain fully
functional.
758-49
MA YOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Brett E. Franklin
COUNClLMEMBERS
Claudia C. Alvarez
Lisa B ist
Alberta D. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
~
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY A TIORNEY
Joseph W, Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patricia E, Healy
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20l
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702
www,santa-ana.org
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Title: Starbuck Coffee Shop
Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of a commercial building with a Starbuck
Coffee Shop with drive through window service. Additionally, the
project involves a request to allow the reduction of the off-street
parking requirement.
Project Location: 2701 North Bristol Street
Project Number: ER 2004-12
Public Review Period: 6/4/200 to 6/23/2004
Hearing Date:
6/28/2004
Hearing Location:
City of Santa Ana Council Chambers
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be
available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located
at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Califomia. Please submit any comments on the
Negative Declaration to the City on or before 6/23/2004. Please direct your comments to:
Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana,
CA, 92702.
If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Dan Bott
at (714) 667- 2700.
EXHIBIT12
i5eB~350
CS 606-2
MA YOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Brett E. Franklin
COUNCILMEMBERS
Claudia C. Alvarez
Lisa B ist
Alberta D. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
~
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY MANAGER
David N, Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W, Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patricia E, Healy
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-201
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana,org
Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for
the project described below:
Project Number:
2004-32
Applicant:
Red Mountain retail Group
Project Location I Address: 2701 North Bristol Street
Project Title I Description: The proposed project is a request for a conditional use
permit to allow the construction of a commercial building
with a Starbuck Coffee Shop with drive through window
service. Additionally, the project involves a request to allow
the reduction of the off-street parking requirement.
And does hereby find:
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to
the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the
applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance.
Signature:
~--if"
Environmental Coordinator
This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative
official, and a Notice of Determination is filed.
Page 2 of32
758-51
CS 606-2
Starbucks/Commercial Building
Initial Study 2002-181
Proposed Project
The proposed proj ect involves the construction of a commercial
building with restaurant uses that would share off-street
parking with an existing commercial center. A Starbuck Coffee
Shop would be located within the commercial development. A
conditional use permit would be required for a proposed drive
through facility for the Starbuck Coffee Shop. Additionally, the
proposed project is requesting a variance to allow for the
reduction of 52 required off-street parking spaces for both the
new commercial building and the existing commercial center.
Setting
The project site is located at 2701 North Bristol Street,
situated within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Ana,
Orange County, California. The property is located on the
northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The property
is approximately 0.51-acres in area, square in shape and
currently vacant. Previously located on the project site was a
gasoline service station.
The project site is located within the Community Commercial (C1)
Zoning District and has a General Plan land use designation of
General Commercial (GC) with a floor area ratio of 0.5.
Project Description
The proposed commercial building would consist of 5,000 square
feet of building area. Restaurant uses would occupy the entire
commercial building. A Starbuck Coffee Shop with a drive through
facility would occupy 1,600 square feet of area. The project
site would be accessed from Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The
building and drive through lane would be located on the
northwest corner of the property.
A total of 20 parking spaces are proposed. The City's Zoning
Code requires a total of 50 parking spaces.
Environmental Impact Analysis
The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed
project, based on the City of Santa Ana's CEQA Environmental
Checklist. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies
Page 3 of32
758-52
the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where needed,
mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential
impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.
I. AESTHETICS
(A.B) No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
project site is void of any scenic vistas or scenic resources.
Additionally, there are no scenic resources associated with a
State Highway within the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in adverse impacts to any scenic resource.
(C) Less Than Significant Impact
According to the City's Urban Design Element, the project site
is located within the Northwest Design District. The Urban
Design Element establishes goals and policies to help guide the
design of development projects proposed within a Design
District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a Design
District should exhibit high quality design and should
incorporate design elements that are proportional and
aesthetically related to the District setting.
Through the City's development review process the proposed
project has been determined to be consistent with the intent of
the Urban Design Element. Compliance with the Urban Design
Element would ensure that the proposed project would not degrade
the existing visual character of the project site or the
surrounding area.
(D) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an urbanized area with onsite
lighting. Implementation of the proposed project would not
introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the
project area.
II. AGRICULTURE
(A.B.C) No Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program and the City's General Plan Land
Use Element EIR there are no prime or unique farmlands on the
2
75Se:S3
project site. Based on a site visit conducted by the City's
Environmental Coordinator, the project site is currently not in
agricultural production. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the loss of any prime or
unique farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY
(A) No Impac t
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin and
subject to the requirements of the Clear Air Act at both the
Federal and State level, as implemented by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. The South Coast Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary planning document to
monitor if air quality standards and objectives are being
achieved in the South Coast Air Basin. The air quality
objectives in the AQMP are based upon population and growth
projections provided in regional plans and local general plans.
A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in
population and growth impacts beyond those identified in
regional plans and/or local general plans.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan,
and would not result in growth projections beyond those
established in the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not be in conflict with the growth
projections and air quality objectives established in the South
Coast AQMP.
(B) Less Than Significant Impact
As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality in the South Coast Air
Basin. The South Coast Air Basin is currently a non-attainment
area for carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen
dioxide. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be
significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified below.
EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Project
Pollutant Construction Tons/ Operations
Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day
Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550
Reactive Organic
Compounds 75 2.5 55
3
758:524
Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55
Particulate
Matter 150 6.75 150
Long-ter.m Operational Air Quality Impacts
The proposed project would involve the development of a 5000
square foot commercial building. The primary source of long-term
operational emissions would be generated by vehicle travel to
and from the project site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous
emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity
usage. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impacts would involve the
development of 2,700 square feet of restaurant uses with a
drive-through facility and the development of 56,000 square feet
of commercial land uses. The proposed project would be less than
the threshold of significance for long-term air quality impacts
established in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Additionally, the
proposed proj ect would not generate CO hotspots, in that the
vehicle trips generated by the proposed proj ect are consistent
with the traffic projections in the City's Circulation Element
and would not cause a roadway to be reclassified at Level of
Service D or worse. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in significant long-term air quality
impacts that would exceed state or federal air quality
standards.
Short-ter.m constructed Related Air Quality Impacts
Construction operations associated with the proposed project
could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate
mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and
ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants
arising from construction of the proposed proj ect would occur
during the grading and excavation phases.
The proposed proj ect would require grading to provide for the
construction of building, parking areas, and access ways.
Assuming grading of the entire proj ect, approximately 22,414
square feet of area would be graded. According to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
the threshold for potentially significant short-term air quality
impacts would involve the grading of 1,309,000 square feet of
area. The proposed grading would be considerably less than the
threshold of significance established in the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. Additionally, all development projects within the
4
7 5S6_~5
South Coast Air Basin would be required to comply with AQMD Rule
403 to implement dust control measures. The purpose of Rule 403
is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the
ambient air as result of human-made fugitive dust sources.
(C) Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
growth that would exceed local growth forecasts for the Orange
County sub region and regional emissions budget developed by the
Southern California Association of Governments for the 1999 Air
Quality Management Plan. SCAG has determined that the air
pollution impacts of any project that conforms to local growth
forecasts would be mitigated by implementation of the South
Coast Air Quality Management Plan.
(D) Less than Significant Impact
As mentioned previously, implementation of the proposed project
would not result in significant long-term air quality impacts or
significant short-term air quality impacts. Additionally, the
proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD
Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to further reduce short-term air quality
impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial
concentrations of air quality pollutants.
(E) Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not be
expected to involve materials that would create significant
objectionable odors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
(A.B.C.D) No Impact
According to the California Department Fish and Game Natural
Diversity Data Base and the City's General Plan Land Use Element
EIR, there are no sensitive biological resources located on or
within the nearby vicinity of the project site. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed proj ect would not result in any
adverse impacts to any onsite sensitive biological resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
(A) No Impact
5 Page 70f32
758-56
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no historical structures
within the nearby vicinity.
project would not result
historical structures.
located on the
Implementation
in significant
project
of the
impacts
site or
proposed
to any
(B.D)
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
project site is not known to contain any archaeological
resources. However, the General Plan Land Use Element EIR does
indicate that the City of Santa Ana has a high potential for
unknown archaeological resources. However, the project area has
been previously graded and there is minimal potential that
unknown archaeological resources and/or unknown human remains
would be encountered during construction operations.
(C) No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
proposed project site is not located in an area where
paleontological resources are known to exist. Given the age and
geology of the project area, it is unlikely that unknown
paleontological resources would exist on the project site.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in adverse impacts to any paleontological resource.
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
(A-l) No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no known active earthquake faults or fault zones on the
project site. Therefore, potential ground rupture impacts are
unlikely.
(A-2) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site 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 the region of the
project site. The Newport Inglewood, located 8-miles south from
the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the most
dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts.
The Newport Inglewood Fault is postulated as having the
potential to generate a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of
6
75B~57
6.3. The proj ect site could potentially be subj ect to moderate
to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake on
Newport Inglewood Fault or on one of the nearby faults in the
southern California region. However, the seismic risk at the
project site is not considered significantly different from
other areas in the region. To minimize potential seismic shaking
impacts, the proposed proj ect would be subj ect to the seismic
safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Compliance with
the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential seismic impacts
to a level considered less than significant.
(A-3) Less Than Significant Impact
Liquefaction is the loss of the strength in generally cohesion
less, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in
the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the
overburden pressure. According to the City's General Plan Land
Use Element EIR, the project site is considered to have High-
Medium potential for liquefaction hazards. Through the City's
development review process, the proposed project would be
required to prepare a geotechncial report to evaluate the
liquefaction constraints on the project site. If needed, design
recommendations would be provided to minimize potential
liquefaction impacts.
(A-4) No Impact
The project site is flat without any topographical relief.
According to the City's General Plan, there are no landslide
planes on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in adverse impacts in regards
to landslides.
(B) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project would require earthwork activity and site
preparation for the construction of a building pad and parking
areas. Uncovered soils on the project site could potentially
result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and
offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could
increase during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion
impacts to a level considered less than significant, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
7
75~3~58
Mitigation Measure
· Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant
shall submit for review and approval a surface
drainage/grading/erosion control plan prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means
of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include
existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all
property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be
directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
(C) No Impact
According to the City's General Plan EIR, the project site does
not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in
adverse impacts to any unique geologic feature.
(D) Less Than Significant Impact
According to the City's General Plan EIR, the project site is
located on Mocho Loam Series Soils that have low shrink/swell
potential, high corrosion potential to uncoated steel and high
corrosion potential to concrete. As part of the City's
development review process, the proposed project would be
required to prepare a construction-level geotechnical study to
identify any needed improvements to ensure the long-term
geotechnical stability of the project site.
(E) No Impact
The project site is situated within an urban setting with
improved infrastructure. In terms of geological stability, the
project site would be able to support the expansion of
additional sewer facilities.
HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
(A) Less than Significant Impact
The operation of the proposed project would not involve the
routine transportation, handling or storage of large quantities
of hazardous materials or waste. However, the long-term
operation and construction operations associated with the
proposed project could potentially involve the handling of
incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as solvents,
oils, and paints. The proposed project would be required to
8
758:59
comply with local, state and federal requirements regarding the
handling and storage of hazardous materials. Compliance with
local, state and federal regulations would reduce potential
hazardous material impacts to a level that is considered less
than significant.
(B) No Impact
The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions, or
involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials.
(C) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site was the former location of a service station.
The underground storage tanks on the site were removed in
accordance with local, state and federal requirements. A closure
letter was issued by the Santa Ana Fire Department indicating
that the project site was not contaminated. Implementation of
the project would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment.
(D) No Impact
According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan,
the project site is not located within an accident potential
zone or clear zone or FAA Notification Area.
VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
(A.E.I.N.R) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
The City of Santa Ana is included within four watersheds; San
Diego Creek, Santa Ana River, Talbert and Westminster. Each of
these watershed areas are under the jurisdiction of the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the
objectives, water quality standards and Best Management Practice
requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and
Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan.
The City of Santa Ana does not contain any impaired water
bodies, as defined by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
However, the City does contain several drainage facilities that
convey surface water runoff into bodies of water that are
classified as impaired.
Additionally, commercial kitchens associated with the proposed
project produces grease as a by-product of their operation. If
9
75e~60
not properly disposed of, the grease could potentially create
blockage of sewer lines, which could result in damages to both
public and private property. Additionally, the spillage could
potentially result water quality impacts. Such impacts could
potentially be in conflict with water quality standards
established by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Additionally, during construction operations surface runoff on
the project site could be potentially degraded.
To reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered
less than significant the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure
· Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall
prepare an NPDES post-construction storm water management
plan per Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)
that includes all structural and non-structural Best
Management Practices.
a. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan
that includes all Structural Best Management Practices.
b. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan
that includes a description of all-applicable Structural
and Non-Structural Best Management Practices, which may
apply to this project.
· Building plans shall reflect that the proposed project is
fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity
as designated by the Building Safety Division of the City
of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the local sanitary
sewer system and regional water quality. Such grease
interceptor shall be regularly maintained so as to remain
fully functional.
(B.Q) No Impact
The proposed project would involve a limited amount of
excavation. It is anticipated that construction operations for
the proposed project would not require de-watering activities.
The long-term operation of the proposed project would not have
any impact on groundwater supplies. Additionally, the proposed
project would not interfere with ground water recharge because
the site is not located in an area that is not known to recharge
the ground water system.
10
7~SZ:621
(C.D.L.M) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an urbanized area. The
City's Public Works Department has indicated that existing
drainage facilities within the project area would be able to
adequately drain the proposed project. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in less than significant drainage
impacts. The project would be subject to drainage assessment
fees to help fund improvements to minimize cumulative drainage
impacts.
(F.G.H) No Impact
According to the Flood rate Insurance Map X0602320029F the
project site is not subject to 100-year flood risks.
Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the
risk of flooding.
(J.K) Less Than Significant Impact
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock
surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are
intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff
channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the
soil exposed. Construction of the proposed project would require
earthwork activities that could potentially result in erosion
impacts. Through the City's development review process, the
proposed proj ect would be required to incorporate Best
Management Practices and erosion control measures to minimize
potential erosion impacts.
(o.P.S) Less Than Significant Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no sensitive marine waters, fresh waters or wetlands in the
City. However, the City does contain several drainage systems
that convey drainage flows to sensitive marine resources.
Pollutants conveyed through these drainage systems could
adversely impact sensitive marine resources. However, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the City's
storm water and urban runoff NPDES requirements to minimize
water quality impacts to downstream marine resources.
IX. LAND USE/PLANNING
(A) No Impact
11
i5B~62
The proposed project would not physically divide any established
community, in that no existing residential uses are located on
the project site. The proposed project would be compatible with
other existing land uses in the area. No adverse land use
compatibility impacts would be associated with implementation of
the proposed project.
(B) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan.
However, the project is requesting a variance from the City's
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the reduction of required parking
spaces and a conditional use permit for a drive through
facility. With approval of the variance and conditional use
permit, the project would be consistent with the City's Zoning
Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would not be
in conflict with any planning programs or policies in the City.
(C) No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
project site is not included within any habitat conservation
plan or any natural community conservation plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
(A) No Impac t
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no areas in Santa Ana designated as significant Mineral
Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the loss of any regionally
or locally important mineral resource.
XI. NOISE
(A.C) Less Than Significant Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the
project site is located on roadways that experiences high
traffic volumes. Convention building materials used for the
proposed project would provide adequate sound attenuation for
employees. Additionally, traffic generated by the proposed
project would not emit noise levels in excess of City standards.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a
12
758:633
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels within
the project area vicinity.
(B.D) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would require conventional construction
equipment and building practices. No significant ground borne
noise impacts or ground borne vibration impacts would be
associated with the proposed project. However, construction
activities and construction equipment staging operations
associated with the proposed project could potentially result in
a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. To minimize
potential construction-related noise impacts to a level
considered less than significant, the project would be required
to comply with City's Noise Ordinance.
(E) No Impact
According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan,
the proposed project site is not located within an area that is
subject to high levels of aircraft noise.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
(A.B.C) No Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not induce
additional population growth into the area, nor would it
displace any existing households or housing.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact
The Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire protection and
emergency medical services for the proposed project. According
to the Santa Ana Fire Department, implementation of the proposed
project would not significantly increase the demands for fire
protection services over current levels of demand within the
project area and that under existing levels of manpower and
equipment, the Fire Department would have the ability to provide
adequate fire protection services. Additionally, through the
City's development review process, the Fire Department has
reviewed and determined that the proposed project would not be
in conflict with the City's Fire Code.
13
7~~4
Police Protection: Less than Significant Impact
The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection
services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana
Police Department, implementation of the proposed project would
not significantly increase the demand for police protection
services over current levels of demand within the project area
and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, the
Police department would have the ability to provide adequate
police protection services. Through the City's development
review process, the Police Department has reviewed and
determined that the proposed project would not be in conflict
with the City's Building Security Ordinance.
Schools: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is situated within the Orange Unified School
District. Implementation of the proposed project would not
generate project-specific demands for new school facilities.
However, the proposed project would be subject to provide school
impacts fees to help address cumulative impacts to school
services in the School District.
Parks, Other Public Facilities: No Impact
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of
a coffee shop/commercial retail use. Implementation of the
proposed project would not significantly increase the demands
for additional park facilities or other public facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
(A.B) No Impact
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of
a coffee shop/commercial retail use. Implementation of the
proposed project would not increase the demands for existing
recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional
recreation facilities.
xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
(A.B) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and the traffic projections within the Circulation Element. The
Public Works Department has determined that implementation of
14
75B~~5
the proposed project would not result in significant project-
related traffic impacts or individually or cumulatively exceed
any required level of service established by the City or by the
County's Congestion Management Program. To help contribute to
project area transportation improvements to reduce cumulative
traffic impacts the project would be required to participate in
the City's Transportation System Improvement Fee Program.
(C) No Impact
The proposed project involves the construction of a single-story
fast-food restaurant. Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The
proposed project would not result in any substantial safety
risks related to aircraft traffic.
(D) Less Than Significant Impact
Construction operations associated with the proposed project
could result in a short-term increase of construction traffic
volumes within the project area. However, the increased level of
construction traffic is not expected to significantly affect the
capacity of existing roadways in the project area.
(E) No Impact
As part of the City's development review process, the Fire
Department has reviewed the proposed project for potential
impacts in regards to emergency access. The Fire Department has
determined that adequate emergency access would be provided.
(F) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is requesting a variance to reduce the on-
site parking requirements. The Planning Division has determined
that the loss of parking spaces would result in less than
significant parking impacts.
(G) No Impact
The proposed project would not be in conflict with any adopted
policies regarding alternative modes of transportation.
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace
existing public transportation facilities.
15
758:66
XVI. UTILITIES
(A.B.E) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana and/or the Orange County Sanitation
District would provide wastewater service to the project site.
The treatment of wastewater would be provided at Reclamation
Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley. The proposed project
would be required to provide appropriate sewer connection fees
with the city of Santa Ana and the Orange County Sanitation
District as well construct new water distribution facilities or
upgrade or relocate existing water distribution facilities. The
proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for
additional wastewater facilities. Mitigation measures have been
identified in Section VIII of this initial study to reduce
potential impacts to the project area sewer system. The proposed
project would not require an increase in wastewater treatment
facilities, nor would the project exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(C) Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly
increase the amount of surface water runoff generated from the
project site. However, the City's Public Works Department has
indicated that existing drainage facilities within the project
area would be able to adequately drain the site. Implementation
of the proposed project would result in less than significant
drainage impacts.
(D) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana would provide water service to the project
site. The water demands for the proposed project are accounted
for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Through the
City's development review process, the Public Works Department
has indicated that the City would have the ability to provide
adequate water service to the project site. No adverse impacts
in regards to the provision of adequate water service would be
associated with the proposed project.
(F.G) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste disposal service
for the proposed project. The California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates all cities and counties
16
f5~:67
in California to divert fifty percent of solid waste generated
from landfill disposal by the year 2000. As part of the General
Plan, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element, which describe how the city intends to comply
with the mandates of AB 939. In order to comply with the
requirements of AB 939, the City has implemented several waste
reduction programs including green waste programs, source
reduction programs, and recycling programs. The proposed project
would be required to comply with the City's recycling program to
reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Compliance with the
City's recycling program would reduce long-term solid waste
disposal service impacts to a level considered less than
significant. No significant adverse impacts would be associated
with providing solid waste disposal service for the proposed
project.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(A) No Impac t
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially
reduce the habitat of fish, wildlife species, or historic
structures in that no fish, wildlife populations or historic
structures are known to exist on the project site.
(B) Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
significant cumulative impacts. The project's incremental
contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the
proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements
of the Uniform Building Code, conditions of approval, mitigation
measures and applicable City Ordinances, which provide specific
requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts
within the project area.
(C) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project involves the construction of a coffee
shop/commercial retail use. The project would not have any
direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation
measures have been required for the construction and operation
of the proposed project to insure that the project would not
have a direct or indirect adverse significant impact to human
beings or the environment.
XVIII DETERMINATION
17
jasSo:S8
Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented
in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I
find that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
XVIV REFERENCES
City of Santa Ana General Plan, September 1982
City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No.
97071058, October 1997,
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use
Element, August 1997
City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, 1993
California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines,
2001
Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, May 2004
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program
California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data
Base
Flood Rate Insurance map X0602320029F
XX. PRE PARERS
Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator
18
7 5S~~9
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
PLANNING DIVISION
I. Project Title: Starbucks/Commercial Building
III.
II. Project Numbers: ER 2002-181
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Santa Ana Planning Division
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
IV.
Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bolt
(714) 667-2719
V. Project Location: 2701 North Bristol Street
Environmental Determination
A. D
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
B. ~
C. D
D. D
E. D
F. D
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -) pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do
not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR
shall be prepared.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however,
subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one
or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.
Signature
June 1. 2004
Date
Printed Name
db\Env Form CECA Chklst
75131-70
Page 1 of 1
~'A
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impacf'
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact".
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to
a less than significant level.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. Aesthetics - Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 M
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 ~
to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings
within a state highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ~
or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X
in the area? 0 0 0
dblEnv Form CECA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
759-011
Page 1 of 12
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project:
A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to
non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program in the California Resources
Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains
detailed maps of these and other categories of
farmland.)
B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Contract?
C. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
;{J
~
~
III. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion
Management Plan?
B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emission which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
db\Env Form CECA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
75B:;.72
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
~
#
x
o
o
o
Page 2 of 12
J
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. Biological Resources - Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian
habitat or natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination
with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling hydrological
interruption, or other means?
D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
V. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontogical resource or site?
dblEnv Form CECA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
75B~7:g
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
~
~.
~
rf
~
)(
JX:
Page 3 of 12
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
D.
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project:
A.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1. Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4. Landslides?
B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature?
D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems?
db\Env Form CEOA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
75Ss-or4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
K
;r
o
o
o
ftZ
o
No
Impact
~
o
Af
o
o
X
o
~
o
J\
Page 4 of 12
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project:
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
D. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles where of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
A.
Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
B.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
75B~T5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
x
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
;<'
o
x
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
~
o
~
o
J(
Page 5 of 12
~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
D. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted run-off?
E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
F. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
G. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
H. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
I. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters? Consider water quality
parameters such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water
pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens,
petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
substances, and trash)
J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction?
K. Could the proposed project result in increased
erosion downstream?
L. Result in increased impervious surfaces and
associated increased runoff?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklsl
ATTACHMENT B
75B~16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
Jgr
o
o
o
p(
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(
~
o
o
o
o
o
Q(
)?(
~
No
Impact
o
o
o
~
J?(
){
o
o
o
o
Page 6 of 12
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact
to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow
rates or volumes?
o
N. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as
listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list: If
so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant of
which the water body is already impaired?
o
O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas?
If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive
conditions?
o
P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact
on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or
wetland waters?
o
Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
o
R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable
surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
o
S. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
o
IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project:
A.
Physically divide an established community? 0
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, 0
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
B.
C.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 0
or natural community conservation plan?
X. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
o
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklsl
Potentially
Significant
Impact
ATTACHMENT B
75'8<;.77
o
M
o
o
o
K
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
K
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PC
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
A:
o
o
~
o
~
~
No
Impact
Page 7 of 12
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
XI. Noise - Would the project result in:
A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without project?
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. Population and Housing - Would the project:
A.
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and business) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
B.
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c.
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
15B~18
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
x
)(
;2(
~
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
~
Jk(
~
~
No
Impact
Page 8 of 12
r
~~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
XIII. Public Services
A.
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public service:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. Recreation
A.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
B.
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. Transportation I Traffic
A.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (Le. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion
at intersections?)
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklsl
ATTACHMENT B
75B-?9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
o
~
OK
~
o
o
o
o
p(
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
~
~
~
fL(
o
No
Impact
Page 9 of 12
~'A
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
E. Result in inadequate emergency access?
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
A.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
B.
Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
C.
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
D.
Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
E.
Result in the determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Fonn CEQA Chklsl
ATTACHMENT B
75B~8{)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
J(
o
2(
o
~
o
~
%-
~
)(
~
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
K
o
~
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
Page 10 of 12
~'A
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
sold waste disposal needs?
G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
B. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
C. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklsl
ATTACHMENT B
7~e-J81
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Jsf
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
P<
o
o
o
~
o
o
Page 11 of12
758-82