The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31A - 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526, 1528 EAST WARNER AVE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~~ ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: MAY 16, 2005 TITLE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005-01 (COUNTY TRACT MAP NO. 16738) FOR OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS AND TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY WITHIN BROOKHOLLOW OFFICE PARK AT 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 AND 1528 EAST WARNER AVENUE - C.T. REALTY CORPORATION, APPLICANT ;') ~/7 !>!tit4-{) fA e_____ CITY MANAGER APPROVED D As Recommended D As Amended D Ordinance on 151 Reading D Ordinance on 2nd Reading D Implementing Resolution D Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2005- 01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On April 25, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) as conditioned by a vote of 7:0 to allow office condominiums and to subdivide property within the Brookhollow Office Park in the Specific Development No. 8 (SD-8) zoning district at 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 and 1528 East Warner Avenue. The Planning Commission amended proj ect conditions to allow a maximum of 42 for sale condominium units with a minimum unit size of 1,200 square feet. A condition was also added requiring that all for sale condominium units be under the control of one condominium association. The Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval are outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~~7M. St~~G. Hardi~ Executive Director Planning & Building Agency BA:rb ba/reports2005/ttm05-01 Brookhollow.cc 31A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 25, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY C.T. REALTY CORPORATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005-01 (COUNTY TRACT MAP NO. 16738) FOR OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS AND TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY WITHIN BROOKHOLLOW OFFICE PARK AT 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 AND 1528 EAST WARNER AVENUE Prepared by Bill Apple ~/7jJi ExecutVe Director APPROVED D As Recommended D As Amended D Set Public Hearing For DENIED D Applicant's Request D Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO ~I:nning Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2004-177. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant C.T. Realty Corporation is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide three parcels within the Brookhollow Office Park into six parcels and three common area lots. The map will also allow each of the six buildings to be converted into commercial condominiums. Property Description The subject site is located within the 34.7-acre Brookhollow Office Park which currently consists of 18 parcels and five common area lots. There are 25 buildings within the office park encompassing 399,516 square feet. The office park is governed by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) controlled by a Master Association. The property has a zoning designation of Specific Development No. 8 (SD-8) and a General Plan Designation of Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. The property is also designated by the General Plan as a Major Development Area. Surrounding land uses include industrial and commercial development to EXHIBIT A 31A-2 Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 April 25, 2005 Page 2 the north; commercial uses and the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway to the south; Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway to the east; and a Southern California Edison primary distribution station, vacant land and hotel/motel uses to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2) The subject site consists of three parcels within the office park and two common lots totaling 6.47 acres. There are six buildings on these parcels with a combined total of 98,227 square feet. Access to these parcels is from Brookhollow Drive, a private street that circles the proj ect site. The proj ect site is adj acent to a central pond, which provides common open space for the office park. Project Description The applicant is proposing a tentative tract map for condominium purposes that would also allow the subdivision of three parcels of land into six smaller parcels and three common area lots (Exhibit 3). A separate legal parcel is being created around each of the six buildings on site, with property lines as close as 10 feet from the walls of each building. Upon recordation of a final tract map, the applicant will have the option to either own, operate or sell each of the six individual parcels and buildings as a whole to a single owner, or record a condominium plan in favor of each parcel and further subdivide each building into commercial condominiums which may be sold off separately or to multiple owners. Three lots will provide common area, landscaping, access and parking for the six parcels. The project will be governed by the Master Association within the Brookhollow Office Park, a sub-association comprised of the owners of each of the six created parcels and a separate sub-association created for the multiple owners of the condominium units. As part of the scope of this proj ect, improvements are proposed to be made to the six existing buildings on the site. As proposed, the buildings will be painted, existing shake roofs will be replaced with a new lightweight concrete tile, and stone veneer will be added to the base of building columns. An art piece and two Canary Island pine trees are also proposed to be added to the site. No new square footage is proposed. Analysis of the Issues Regulating the development is a cities. Whenever carefully evaluate subdivision of property for purposes of sale and core function of local legislative bodies, such as a new subdivision of land is proposed, staff must the proposal in order to ensure that the design will 31A-3 Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 April 25, 2005 Page 3 result in a high quality project that will endure over time. In order to accomplish this evaluation, we rely upon the standards contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act and the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. In the case of the proposed project, there are two levels proposed: the creation of new legal parcels of land that in fee by a potential purchaser; and the creation condominiums which could be sold to multiple owners. of subdivision could be owned of air space The project site is located within Specific Development No.8, which establishes permitted uses and site landscape and development standards to guide development within the office park. The project complies with the standards set forth within the specific development plan. The project will be governed by the Brookhollow Office Park Master Association and sub-associations comprised of the owners of each of the six created parcels and a separate sub-association created for the multiple owners of the condominium units. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) have been established for the project that address issues such as common access, parking, utilities, landscaping, architecture and maintenance for the planned development. The Subdivision Map Act [Section 66426(c)] requires that a project have approved access to a public right-of-way but does not set forth specific street frontage requirements, which is determined by the local jurisdiction approving the map. The common area parcels provide the necessary access and street frontage for all parcels within the project site (SAMC Section 34-68). The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) land use designation of the General Plan and the development standards outlined in Specific Development No.8. The design, configuration, and size of the proposed parcels and common lots are in conformance with the City of Santa Ana's requirements for the subdivision of property and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. On March 14, 2005 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed proj ect . At the hearing, staff expressed concerns regarding subdividing the property into small parcels, the project's compatibility with the General Plan, and ancillary issues pertaining to parking, the California Building Code and creating multiple layers of CC&Rs. After receiving testimony from the applicant and the public, the Planning Commission continued the case and directed staff to complete the environmental documentation and develop conditions of approval for the proposed tentative tract map. Due to the unique character, scale and 31A-4 Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 April 25, 2005 Page 4 atmosphere of the office park, the Commission concluded that it was unlikely that the site would transition into a mid to high rise office project and was comfortable with the small lot subdivision proposed by the applicant in this particular case. Based upon the above analysis and findings for the project, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-01 as conditioned. CEQA Compliance This proj ect was reviewed In accordance with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Because the project involves the subdivision of property only without the construction of new buildings or square footage, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to human beings or the environment. Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-177 will be filed for this project (Exhibi t 4) . u fln~ ~ Bill Apple Associate Planner Vince Fregoso, Senior Planne BA:JM ba/reports2005/ttm05-01 Brookhollow.approval.pc 31A-5 tl:JGtJ 001 M1 I I 50-69 ~ ST ANDREW Pl M1 GlENW 50-69 . M1 R1 R1 i Rl Rl M1 M1 ~ 00 ~ R1 ~ ~ Cl M1 M1 R1 R1 z M1 ~ ~ H T M1 M1 <( oc , g " R1 ~ MAYWQOO AV. CiI Y of Tustin WARNER AV. R2 I R2 M1 R2 I R1 M1 PROJECT SITE I 50-12 ~ i fI~ ~]ll'[:::/ ~/ I", g 'I II / / 1/ " , I 50-12 I I I I I I I I M1 50-63 M1 " II " 11__- tr--.... I..! Ml M2 Al -B C-SM Cl Cl-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 M1 CR GC Ml M2 MO o P PCD PRO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Rl R2 R3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN R4 RE SO SP A TM 05-1 MR. DAVE BALL, C.T. REALTY CORP. 1516-1528 EAST WARNER AVENUE ~ #{' 1" = 1000 FEET - = 500 FEET P LAN A N ENe Y N G N D B U L D EXHIBIT 1 31A-6 N G A G INDUSTRIAL WARNER AVENUE w ;:) z w ~ -J <( - ex: .... (J) ::::> Q <: - C Z <C IX CJ ~ ~~~ TM 05-1 MR. DAVE BALL, C.T. REALTY CORP. 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 and 1528 EAST WARNER AVENUE ~ Water D Common Area Lots Building Parcels A gy' PLANNING BUILDING AGE N C Y AND EXHIBIT 2 31A-7 ,,~~~~-;;."'l)lIa I J 8Cla 'aN cIVIl .1:)YII.1. iW1YlJIiiU. WIIIOIIIr.) 'WW YDIWa YNY YJHY8 - MM1OfOIOOIII I '" i I ", I I! I i i i . I I I~~D -l !: co Cf) ...... co~ .... a: en o~ ~ ]' Z 0 " en a. " i ^ en IE ,f :(W a: :ll'" :I i -- ..,~~m ~: i f--~\ ~9~ 0 ~'-\'~\ I- ...I , ";~ \ ~ o l''.\~ W:I: 0 f - - ~" ~8 ~~'_,,,)~~, c( a: u. _ " I-m "~~~ Z ~~_--::_~, . W I ~~"_, '~~';t~:--_~~.... ---.....tr..- I- I' "'-~-'1i1~) -,fl:;;,,\n\~;~- ~ . , Ii I I , ~:=-:=:=:=-:=:=:-=:-=-::=:i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --~ ~ I!; !:~/:I "r, !;!!II il~m! IS, ,~.,el I~i~el' liS' il. JVS'i~. rlU; ~~; 0 rl! r;~fil '.n. f or! - '8- s". i!' ~, I'; t N !~:~. I ~~"-II i!~ "SI,a ~il Ili~!d r~ihh ! .fll ",I! ~~~ :~s!;r; ~" "i IJi! H I*!I~ ;~i, I.," .I~!.~. t~:t' Iii" ....! ~. ~ u .~~a. s << tf~8 I > !.-n a f ~:? .liJ f < !.i ~ r i.IS.J, ;b,! i Ii ili I, : ~ liI~' I' j . I I'll'! ~ i . 'ill II ij : Ifdi :i = I il I.I~I II ~ S i S ~!I!; !. ~ J II II d ii i ;;1: I I!. . ~ia ~ d' J Sf. . ". . wi i f' -1 -. ii ~:'I I=! 11=!i I ~~~! ! el;t a~~t . II EXHIBIT 3 ~ o' WI', --"lZI!!!!!!!l: I ~I / / / MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Lisa Bist COUNCIL MEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Carlos Bustamante 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-20) P.O. BOX 1988. Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Brookhollow Postage Stamp Lots TM 2005-01 County Tract No. 16738 Project Description: The proposed project consists of the following: To subdivide 3 existing parcels into 6 parcels and 3 lettered lots. In addition, the map will allow each of the six buildings to be converted into commercial condominiums. Project Location: Brookhollow Office Park, 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 and 1528 East Warner Avenue. Project Number: Tract Map No. 16738, ER 2004-177, DP 04-54, TM 05-1 Public Review Period: 3-29-05 to 4-19-05 Hearing Date: April 25, 2005 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 4-18-05. Please direct your comments to: 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 Bill Apple at (714) 667-2747. fl~i4 ' MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Lisa Bist COUNCIL MEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Carlos Bustamante 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-20) P.O. BOX 1988. Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number: TM 05-1, Tract Map No. 16738, DP 2004-54, ER 2004-177, Applicant: C.T. Realty Corporation, Dave Ball Project Location I Address: 1516, 1518,1520,1522,1526 and 1528 East Wamer Avenue. Project Title I Description: The proposed project involves a tentative tract map for condominium purposes that would also allow the subdivision of three parcels of land into six smaller parcels and three common area lots. 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 the project involves the subdivision of land only with no new buildings or square footage proposed. The project will comply with all applicable City codes and standards as well as the State Subdivision Map Act. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to human beings and the environment. Signature: ~ err<;j'< Date: 3-24-05 Associate Planner This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 3U\~1 0 REQUEST C.T. Realty Corporation has submitted a tentative tract map to subdivide three parcels within the Brookhollow Office Park into six parcels and three common area lots. The map will also allow each of the six buildings to be converted into commercial condominiums. The proj ect requires approval by the Planning Commission because the project site is located within a Specific Development zoning designation. SETTING The project site is located within the 34.7-acre Brookhollow Office Park, which currently consists of 18 parcels and five common area lots. The office park is governed by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) controlled by a Master Association. The subject site consists of three parcels and two common area lots within the inner ring of the office park totaling 6.47 acres. There are six buildings on the proj ect si te with a combined total of 98,227 square feet. Access to these parcels is from Brookhollow Drive, a private street that circles the project site. The property has a zoning designation of Specific Development No. 8 (SD-8) and a General Plan Designation of Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Surrounding land uses include industrial and commercial development to the north; commercial uses and the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway to the south; Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway to the east; and a Southern California Edison primary distribution station, vacant land and hotel/motel uses to the west. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing a tentative tract map for condominium purposes that would also allow the subdivision of three parcels of land into six smaller parcels and three common area lots. A separate fee parcel is being created around each of the six buildings on site, with property lines as close as 10 feet from the walls of each building. Upon recordation of a final tract map, the applicant will have the option to either own, operate or sell each of the six individual parcels and buildings as a whole to a single owner, or record a condominium plan in favor of each parcel and further subdivide each building into commercial condominiums which may be sold off separately or to multiple owners. Three lots will provide common area, landscaping, access and parking for the six parcels. The proj ect will be governed by the Master Association wi thin the Brookhollow Office Park, a sub-association comprised of the owners of each of the six created parcels and a separate sub- 31~11 Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 April 11, 2005 Page 2 association created for the multiple owners of the condominium units. As part of the scope of this project, improvements are proposed to be made to the six existing buildings on the site. As proposed, the buildings will be painted, existing shake roofs will be replaced with a new lightweight concrete tile, and stone veneer will be added to the base of building columns. An art piece and two Canary Island pine trees are also proposed to be added to the site. No new square footage is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed proj ect, based on the City of Santa Ana's CEQA Environmental Checklist. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where needed mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level considered less than significant. I. AESTHETICS (A.) No Impact The proposed project will not change the visual appearance of the office park because there are no new buildings or building square footage proposed as part of the project. The project consists of the subdivision of land only. The project site is situated within an area that is characterized with commercial land uses. The City's General Plan indicates that there are no scenic or historic resources located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any onsite or adjacent scenic or historic resource. (B. C) Less Than Significant Incorporated According to the City of Santa Ana Urban Design Element the project site is located within the Freeway Window Design District. The Urban Design Element requires that new development 2 3~A~12 within design districts incorporate the highest quality design, materials, and finishes and that the character of existing districts be protected from intrusive development. Although the project site is located within the Brookhollow Office Park, which is located adjacent to the Costa Mesa State Route 55 Freeway, the subject site is located within the interior of the office park and is not itself viewable from the 55 freeway corridor. Since the proposed project consists of the subdivision of land and air space without any new square footage or buildings being added to the site, implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site or surrounding area. (D) Less than Significant Impact The project site is located within an area that is characterized with commercial land uses. Presently, onsite lighting is provided throughout the project area. Because the project consists of the subdivision of land only, 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 Based on the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site does not contain any prime or unique farmland. Based on a site visit conducted by the City's Project Planner, the project site is currently not in agricultural production. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any prime or unique farmland. III. AIR QUALITY (A) No Impact 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 a City's General Plan. A project could 3 3~13 be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in a City's General Plan. The proposed project involves the subdivision of land only. The proposed project would not affect the growth projections in the General Plan and would not be in conflict with the objectives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 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 Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter 150 6.75 150 Long-ter.m Operational Air Quality Impacts The proposed project involves the subdivision of land into six fee parcels and future condominium units only. Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not result in significant long- term air quality impacts that would exceed state or federal air quality standards since there are no additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. Short-ter.m construction related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed proj ect, including the following building improvements: buildings will be painted, existing shake roofs will be replaced with a new lightweight concrete tile, and stone veneer will be added to the 4 31A~14 base of building columns. An art piece and two Canary Island pine trees are also proposed to be added to the site. No new square footage is proposed. These improvements could potentially result in short term increases in particulate mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant short-term air quality impacts that would not exceed state or federal alr quality standards. (C) Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above, the proposed proj ect would not result in significant long-term or short-term air quality impacts. Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to have a de minmus or negligible contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the region. (D) Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant long-term air quality impacts, significant short- term air quality impacts or significant cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial concentrations of air quality pollutants. (E) No Impact The proposed project would not generate any short-term construction related or long-term operational odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (A.B.C.D) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no sensitive biological resources located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to any onsite sensitive biological resources. 5 31A~15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (A) No Impac t The buildings located on the project site are less than 35 years in age and have no historical significance. Additionally, the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR indicates that there are no structures on the proj ect site that are designated a federal, state or local historical resource. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any historic resource. (B.D) Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR the project site is not known to contain archaeological resources. However, the General Plan Land Use Element EIR indicates that based on the number of known archeological sites in Santa Ana, there is high potential for unknown archaeological resources to exist in the City. Given the limited amount of earthwork activity involved with the proposed project, the discovery of unknown archeological resources would be remote. (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. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to paleontological resources. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS (A-l) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known active faults that cross the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential ground rupture impacts. (A-2) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within a highly active seismic region of southern California. Thirty-eight active faults have been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the project site. The Whittier Fault, located approximately 5 miles from the proj ect site is considered to be the most dominant fault ln regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The 6 31A~16 Whittier Fault is postulated as having the potential to generate a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6.8 and a maximum probable earthquake of magnitude of 5.9. Other nearby faults incl uding the Elysian Park Thrust, Sierra Madre, Cucamonga and Raymond faults are within approximately 20 miles of the project site and could also impact the project site with respect to seismic shaking. The proj ect site could potentially be subj ect to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the Whittier Fault or along one of the nearby faults in the region. However, the seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly different from other areas in the southern California region. Since there are no new structures or new building square footage associated with the proposed proj ect, Seismic risks would not increase. (A-3) Less Than Significant Impact Soil liquefaction occurs when loose soil deposits located below the water table are subjected to large ground accelerations generated from seismic events. According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site has high to very-high potential for liquefaction hazards. Through, the City's development review process any new building construction would be required to prepare a geotechnical study to address the potential for liquefaction impacts. Since there are no new structures or new building square footage associated with the proposed project, the risk of seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction would not increase. (A-4) No Impact The project site is flat without any topographical relief. According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, 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) No Impact The proposed proj ect would not require any grading or other earthwork activity and therefore no uncovered soils are anticipated that would result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 7 31&17 (C) No Impact According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site does not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any unique geologic feature. (D.E) No Impact According to the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is known to contain soils (Chino Series) that have moderate shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated steel and low potential for corrosion of concrete. Since the project consists only of the subdivision of land and air space and doesn't involve any new buildings or new building square footage, implementation of the proposed project should not resul t in on- or off - si te landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Any new development, if proposed, would be required to submit a construction-level geotechnical report to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project site. VII HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (A.B) Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not involve the handling, storage or transportation of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Normal construction operations associated with the proposed project would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials. The proposed project would be required to comply with local, state and federal requirements regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Compliance with local, state and federal regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials would reduce potential hazardous material impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 8 31A~118 (C) No Impact The proposed project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste. The proj ect involves the subdivision of land and air space. (D) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is not identified as a hazardous material site, pursuant to Section 659662.5 of the Government Code. Implementation of the proj ect would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (E) Less Than Significant Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the proj ect site is not located within an accident potential zone or clear zone. However, the project site is located within a FAA Notification Area. All structures on the project site are existing. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area since the project only consists of the subdivision of air space and land. Any future development on the project site would be required to coordinate with the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? I. Resulting an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? J. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. E. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? K. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? N. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) list. If so, can it 9 31A~19 result in an increase in any pollutant of which the body is already impaired? O. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P. Have a potentially significant surface water quality to either waters? environmental impact or marine, fresh or wetland R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? S. Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat? Less than Significant Impact 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 subj ect 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 implements the goals, obj ecti ves and requirements of the Basin Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the City's Local Implementation Plan. Implementation of the proposed proj ect should not change any drainage flow or alter any existing drainage patterns on the project site since the project involves only the subdivision of land without any new buildings or construction. The project site and surrounding area is improved with drainage facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns or significantly increase existing rates of surface water runoff since the project only involves the subdivision of property without any physical changes to the project site. According to the City's Public Works Department the existing drainage facilities within the project area would provide adequate drainage for the proposed project. Nuisance flows on the project site should not change since there is no new construction and the project only involves the subdivision of air space and land. Nuisance flows are defined as runoff that occurs during periods that are not usually associated with rainfall, and are most commonly produced from landscaping irrigation, leaking pipes, and water used to wash off surfaces tributary to the street. Since nuisance flows 10 31A~20 usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Such flows are ultimately directed into a regional flood control facility then conveyed to the ocean, potentially resulting in adverse water quality impacts. According to Flood rate insurance Map No. proj ect site is located wi thin Flood Zone X lOa-Year Flood Zone. Therefore, the proposed be subject to significant flood risks. 0602320038F the and not wi thin a proj ect would not Addi tionally, surface water runoff generated from the proj ect site would not be degraded during construction operations since there no new buildings or square footage proposed. Currently, the project site does not contain any structural Best Management Practices, which would potentially decrease the amounts of pollutants in storm water runoff. IX. LAND USE/PLANNING (A) No Impact The proposed project would not physically divide any established community, in that there are located on the project site. No be associated with implementation no existing residential adverse land use impacts of the proposed project. uses would (B) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed proj ect involves the subdivision of land into fee parcels and condominium units. With approval of the proposed requests, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the General Plan or other relevant planning programs in the City. (C) No Impact According to the City's General Plan, the proj ect included within any habitat conservation plan or community conservation plan. site any is not natural X. MINERAL RESOURCES (A) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there is no areas in Santa Ana that are designated Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any regionally or locally important mineral resource. 11 31A~1 XI. NOISE (A.C) No Impact Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not significantly increase existing ambient noise levels wi thin the proj ect area to levels in excess of standards established in the City's general plan or noise ordinance, in that no additional sources of long term noise would be generated by the proposed project. (B.D) Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities associated with improvement to existing buildings on the site including painting, replacing existing shake roofs with a new lightweight concrete tile, and the addition of stone veneer to the base of building columns could temporary increase existing noise levels within the project area. The project would comply with the city's noise ordinance which limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no construction activity allowed on Sunday's and Federal Holidays. Street work is not expected to result in significant noise impacts. (E) No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an area that is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Therefore, implementation of the proposed proj ect would not expose the public to excessive aircraft noise impacts. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING (A.B.C) No Impact Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not induce significant new population growth into the project area or necessitate the need for the development of new housing since all buildings on the project site are existing and there are no new buildings proposed. Additionally, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing, in that there is no existing housing located on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant population and housing impacts. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection: No Impact 12 31A~22 Fire protection services within the City of Santa Ana are provided by the City of Santa Ana Fire Department. The Santa Ana Fire Department maintains ten fire stations throughout the City. The stations are situated where no location in Santa Ana is outside of an approximate 1.5 mile radius of a fire station. Additionally, the City maintains a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection services with the neighboring Cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Tustin, Irvine and Costa Mesa. According to the City of Santa Ana Insurance Service Organization, the City has a low fire risk rating. The proposed project would not result in an increased demand for fire protection and emergency services. Through the City's development review process, the fire department has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the Uniform fire Code. The fire department has indicated they would have the ability to provide adequate fire protection and emergency services for the proposed project. Police Protection: No Impact The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The Police Department is headquartered at 60 Civic Center Plaza. The Department is subdivided into four policing districts, with each district serving a section of the City. The proposed project is located within the Southeast Reporting District. Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not increase the demand for police protection services over existing levels of demand within the project area. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services. Schools: No Impact The project site is within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). The proposed project would not generate substantial amount of new students wi thin the SAUSD. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to school services. Parks, Other Public Facilities: No Impact Implementation of increase the use the proposed proj ect would not of existing park facilities or significantly other public 13 31A~23 facilities. No adverse park impacts or other public facility impacts would be associated with the proposed project. XIV. RECREATION (A.B) No Impact Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not significantly increase the use of existing recreation facilities or generate a need for new recreational facilities. No adverse recreational impacts would be associated with the proposed project. xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (A.B) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections because the proposed project would not generate additional vehicle trips within the project area. (C) No Impact Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Nor would the proposed project result in any substantial safety risks related to aircraft traffic. (D) No Impact Implementation of design features hazards. the that proposed proj ect would would substantially not involve any increase traffic (E) No Impact As part of the City's development review process, the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for potential impacts with regards to emergency access. The Fire Department has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant emergency access impacts. (F) No Impact Since the proposed project involves the subdivision of land only, additional parking will not be required to implement the proposed project. 14 31A~24 (G) No Impact The proposed project would not be in conflict with any adopted policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Public transportation facilities would be available to provide access to the project site. XVI. UTILITIES (A.B.E) No Impacts The City of Santa Ana and/or the Orange County Sanitation District provides wastewater service to the existing site. Because there is no new building square footage proposed as part of the project, the project would not generate any new wastewater demands. The proposed proj ect would not require an increase in wastewater treatment capacity reclamation Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley. Nor would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. (C) Less Than Significant Impact The subdivision of property would not in and of itself significantly change or increase the rate of surface water runoff currently generated from the proj ect site. The proj ect would not require the construction of new drainage facilities that would cause significant impacts to the environment. (D) Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana Water Department would provide domestic water service for the proposed proj ect. The City of Santa Ana produces water from two sources. The Orange County Groundwater Basin provides 75% f the annual water supply and the Metropolitan Water District provides 25% of the annual water supply. The City of Santa Ana has 19 active wells with combined capacities of approximately 42,500 gallons per minute. The also has seven MWD connections with combined normal operating capacities of 20,700 gallons per minute. The total combined capacity of all water production facilities is 63,200 gallons per minute. The current total annual water demand for the City of Santa Ana is 51,170 acre-feet per year. Per the City's 2000 Urban Water 15 31A~25 Management Plan, the year 2020 projected water demand is 55,370 acre feet per year. According to the Santa Ana Water Department the proposed project would fall within the population and growth projections identified in the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. (F.G) Less Than Significant Impact Because there is no new building square footage proposed as part of the project, the project is not anticipated to generate any significant amount of solid waste. Proposed building improvements will generate solid waste in a quantity that is considered to be a less than significant impact. The proj ect will comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste collection services. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (A) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species or historic resources, in that no fish or wildlife populations or historic resources are known to exist on the project site. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to a level considered less than significant. (B) Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to the environment. The proposed project's incremental contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building code, Subdivision Map Act and City Development Standards that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. (C) No Impact The environmental analysis has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to human beings and the environment. 16 31A~26 XVIII DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed proj ect would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. XVIV REFERENCES City of Santa Ana Updated General Plan Land Use Element February 1998. Updated January, General Plan Land 1998, SC 97071058 Use Element Environmental Impact, 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, January 1999 Site Visit by Bill Apple, Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, July 2001 xx. PREPARERS Bill Apple, Associate Planner, City of Santa Ana; Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator 17 31A~27 ~~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Brookhollow Postage Stamp Lots II. Project Numbers: ER 2004-177 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bott (714) 667-2719 V. Project Location: Intersection of Main Street and MacArthur Boulevard Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A.~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. D Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. D 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. YeIr\. ~ -:=1 s;~ ~ 13:o-tt Printed Name Aoril 13. 2005 Date db\Env Form CEOA Chklst Page 1 of 1 31A~28 ~~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impacf' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., 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? D D D ~ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited D D % D to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character J!1 or quality of the site and its surroundings? D D D D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views .It in the area? D D D db\Env Form CEOA Chklst Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT B 31A!29 an 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 California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) D D D D D D D D D ~ ~ % 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: 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? 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 CEOA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A'330 D D D D D D D D D ~ c( rj. ~ D D D Page 2 of 12 arr~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 CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~31 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D M D No Impact w ~ ~ rK ( rX' D ~ 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 31A~32 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact % D D % % D D D D D No Impact D D ~ D D ~ )! ~ ~ P' Page 4 of 12 crIT~AfA 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 31Ae33 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ w D D Jttr K No Impact D D ~ % D D Page 5 of 12 anfA 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. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 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 Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~34 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ ~ D D D ~ kf ~ % No Impact D D D ~ % )! D D D D Page 6 of 12 aRIA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? 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. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? R. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? S. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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? Issues & Supporting Information Sources dblEnv Fonn CEQA Chkls! ATTACHMENT B 31A:;o35 D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation JK ~ ~ ~ K rt D ;tr D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D .fa D ~ ~ No Impact Page 7 of 12 arrf^ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Incorporated XI. Noise - Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne 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 dblEnv Form CECA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31~36 D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation D ~ D 9J. D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ D << D << ~ M ~ No Impact Page 8 of 12 ~~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 (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) Issues & Supporting Information Sources dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~37 D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ D D D D D ~ ~ JIf No Impact Page 9 of 12 anf^ 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 dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~38 D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation D D D D D D D D M' ;tf D Less Than Significant Impact ~ l11' r2f !( ~ ~ ~ ~ D D ~ No Impact Page 10 of 12 anlA 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 Chklst ATTACHMENT B 31A~9 Incorporated D ~ D D D ~ D D D XI D D D &z!. D D D J( D D Page 11 of 12 KG - 5/2//05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2004-177 AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005-01 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1516, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526 AND 1528 EAST WARNER AVENUE (COUNTY MAP NO. 16738) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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. Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 seeking to divide the existing three parcels into six parcels and three common area lots for the properties located at 1516,1518,1520,1522,1526 and 1528 East Warner Avenue. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on March 14,2005. After receiving testimony from the applicant and the public, the Planning Commission continued the case and directed staff to complete the environmental documentation and develop conditions of approval for the proposed tentative tract map. Due to the unique character, scale and atmosphere of the office park, the Commission concluded that it was unlikely that the site would transition into a mid to high rise office project and was comfortable with the small lot subdivision proposed by the applicant in this particular case. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following findings have been established: I. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Professional Administrative Office land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed project consists of a tentative tract map for condominium purposes that would also allow the subdivision of three parcels of land into six smaller parcels and three lettered lots. The six parcels are being created around the existing six buildings with no new square footage being 31A-40 Resolution No. 2004-11 Page 1 of 4 added to the structures. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Professional and Administrative Office land use designation of the General Plan. The project also complies with the design and development standards outlined in Specific Development Plan No.8, which has previously been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's zoning code and the development standards outlined in Specific Development NO.8 which governs development within the Brookhollow office park. The design, configuration, and size of the proposed parcels and common lots are in conformance with the City of Santa Ana's requirements for the subdivision of property and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The Brookhollow Office Park (SD-8) was established in 1977 as an integrated office development on 34.7 acres. Its water features and garden setting make it unique in character and one of the premier office parks in the City. The character of the office park will change if it is subdivided into small lots that do not stand on their own with respect to City development standards such as parking, minimum lot size, street frontage, landscaping and setbacks. iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The parcel map will not cause environmental damage nor injure fish or wildlife, as the site is currently occupied by existing office buildings. In addition, no fish or wildlife has been identified as residing on the project site. v. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. There are no new buildings or building square footage proposed as part of this project and, therefore, no alterations are proposed to the development project that would create Resolution No. 2005-11 Page 2 of 4 31A-41 public health problems. The small lot subdivisions and condominiums proposed in Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 will not affect the health or safety of persons residing in the vicinity since the project does not involve any new buildings on the project site. VI. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. The small lot subdivision and office condominiums proposed in the tract map will not create any conflicts with existing easements found on the site. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) are in place and will be amended as necessary to ensure that the appropriate easements such as access, egress, drainage, utility and other necessary easements are maintained over the 6.47 -acre project site. Section 2. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" 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 Planning Commission Action dated March 14, 2005 and April 25, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 31A-42 Resolution No. 2004-11 Page 3 of 4 ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle (7) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: None (0) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Glenn Mondo Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2005-11 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on April 25, 2005. Date: Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2005-11 Page 4 of 4 31A-43 Conditions for Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) is approved subject to compliance to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the 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 tentative parcel map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the parcel map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the parcel map. A. Buildina Department 1. The Building Official of the City of Santa Ana and Planning Manager shall approve any modification to the CC&R's required for Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738). B. Plannina Division 1 . Provide an exhibit showing all landscape areas within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) including the type and location of existing trees. The project, at minimum, shall retain the number of trees and amount of landscaping existing at the time of City approval. The landscape exhibit shall be recorded as part of the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. 2. All landscape areas within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) shall continue to be maintained by the Brookhollow Master Association. 3. The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all utilities within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) including but not limited to gas, electric, water and trash unless each individual for sale unit is separately metered for the above mentioned utilities. 4. In the event that each individual for sale unit created by this map has separate electrical meters, these meters shall be maintained within the building or condominium footprint and shall not be installed on the exterior of the building. All other utility meters must be screened from public view with landscaping or materials approved by the Planning Division. EXHIBIT "A" P~~ 1 of 3 31A-44 5. For the common area, a single Owners' Association shall be created to provide insurance and assume maintenance obligations for the structural integrity of all structures within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) including any normal routine maintenance to the exterior of structures that is not undertaken by the Brookhollow Master Association. All for sale condominium units within the project shall be under the control of one condominium association. 6. The Applicant shall provide insurance and assume maintenance obligations for all common areas and common area parcels within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) including improvements such as trees, shrubs, grass and other landscaping, irrigation equipment, project lighting, fixtures, paving, drive aisles, parking areas, striping, walkways, and sidewalk areas and other common area improvements that are not undertaken by the Brookhollow Master Association. 7. All Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) affecting the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-01 (County Tract Map No. 16738) shall be created for the project and approved by the City of Santa Ana prior to recording of the final map. The CC&R's shall address issues pertaining to reciprocal access, site lighting, irrigation, landscaping, paving, fencing, parking, architecture, drainage, screening of roof mounted equipment, easements to maintain fire department access, hydrants and fire protection equipment and restrictions pertaining to outdoor storage and equipment. 8. The project shall continue to function as an integrated development. No fences will be permitted in the common area or across drive aisles for the purpose of creating yard areas for individual condominium units. 9. All pot holes, raised paving and broken curbs within the boundaries of the map shall be repaired and parking areas slurry coated and restriped as part of a normal maintenance program. 10. Two copies of the recorded final tract map and City approved Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided each to the Planning Division, Building Division and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. All development within the area of the map is subject to development and other applicable fees including permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 12. All development within the area of the map is subject to all design and development standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. EXHIBIT "A" P3'A~~5 13. Prior to recordation of any final map, Applicant shall submit to the City a plan showing each unit to be created in sufficient detail to locate all boundaries thereof. If Applicant proposes more than 42 for-sale units, or proposes a subdivision creating any unit with a square footage less than 1,200 square feet, then the Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing to consider imposition of additional map conditions. 14. The word "Applicant" shall be deemed to include any successor-in-interest to Applicant. EXHIBIT "A" P~, A~4:6