HomeMy WebLinkAbout FULL PACKET_2005-05-16
4/13/05 LES
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2685
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT
PLANS AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF
INDEBTEDNESS AND RECEIPT OF PROPERTY TAXES
FOR EACH OF THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT AREAS AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby, finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. The Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Santa
Ana ("Agency") is a community redevelopment agency duly created,
established, and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers,
all under and pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Part I of Division 24, commencing with Section 33000 of the Health &
Safety Code of the State of California) ("CRL").
B. The Agency is engaged in activities necessary and appropriate
to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for each of the six redevelopment
project areas which have now been merged.
C. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 33333.6,
a time limit of the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plans and a time
limit on the period of repayment of indebtedness and receipt of property
taxes under the Redevelopment Plan have been established.
D. By and through Senate Bill 1096, enrolled on July 29,2004, and
chaptered on August 5, 2004 ("SB 1 096"), Health and Safety Code section
33333.6 was amended to provide that as to Redevelopment Plans
originally adopted before January 1, 1994, and when such redevelopment
agency is required to make a payment to the Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund in fiscal year 2004-2005 pursuant to CRL section
33681.12, the City Council, as the legislative body of the Agency, may
enact an ordinance to extend by one year the time limit on the
effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan and the time limit for payment of
indebtedness and receipt of property taxes under the Redevelopment
Plan, each and respectively.
11 A-1
E. SB 1096 further provides that such ordinance may be adopted
without compliance with the normal procedures for redevelopment plan
amendments.
F. SB 1096 provides that the legislative body must make certain
determinations and findings in the ordinance and must hold a noticed
public hearing on the amendments.
G. The City Council desires to adopt this Ordinance to amend and
extend certain time limitations of the Redevelopment Plan, as more
particularly set forth below, in accordance with section 33333.6, as
amended by SB 1096.
H. The enactment of this Ordinance is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.)
("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) because it is
a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific
project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the
environment.
SECTION 2: As used in this Ordinance, the following definitions shall
apply:
Agency shall mean the Community Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Santa Ana.
Bristol Plan shall mean the Santa Ana Bristol Redevelopment Plan
originally adopted by Ordinance No. NS-2039 on or about December 4,
1989; amended by Ordinance No. NS-2231 and NS-2234 on or about
October 3,1994; Ordinance No. NS-2396 on or about August 2,1999; and
Ordinance No. NS-2652 on May 17, 2004.
Central City Plan shall mean the Santa Ana Central City
Redevelopment Plan originally adopted by Ordinance No. NS-1173 on or
about July 2,1973, amended by Ordinance No. NS-1258 on or about June
2,1975; Ordinance NS-1877 on or about December 1,1986; Ordinance
No. NS-2234 on or about October 3, 1994; Ordinance No. NS-2290 on
April 6, 1996; Ordinance No. NS-2396 in August of 1999; and Ordinance
No. NS-2652 on May 17, 2004.
Community Redevelopment Law shall mean Part 1 (commencing
with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the California Health & Safety Code,
as amended from time to time.
Inter City Plan shall mean the Santa Ana Inter City Redevelopment
Plan originally adopted by Ordinance No. NS-1636 on or about July 6,
2
11 A-2
1982, amended by Ordinance No. NS-2234 on or about October 3, 1994;
Ordinance NS-2289 on or about May 6, 1996; Ordinance NS-2396 in
August of 1999; and Ordinance No. NS-2652 on May 17, 2004.
North Harbor Plan shall mean the Santa Ana North Harbor
Boulevard Redevelopment Plan originally adopted by Ordinance No. NS-
1637 on or about July 6, 1982, amended by Ordinance No. NS-2234 on or
about October 3, 1994; Ordinance NS-2396 in August of 1999; Ordinance
NS-2641 on January 20,2004; and Ordinance No. NS-2652 on May 17,
2004.
Merged Project Area shall mean the six project areas that were
merged on or about September 20, 2004 by Ordinance No. NS-2662,
Ordinance No. NS-2663, Ordinance No. NS-2664, Ordinance No. NS-
2665, Ordinance No. NS-2666, and Ordinance No. NS- 2667.
South Harbor Plan shall mean the Santa Ana South Harbor
Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelopment Plan originally adopted by
Ordinance No. NS-1638 on or about July 6,1982, amended by Ordinance
No. NS-2167 on or about August 3, 1992; Ordinance No. NS-2234 on or
about October 3, 1994; Ordinance NS-2396 in August of 1999; Ordinance
NS-2641 on January 20, 2004; and Ordinance No. NS-2652 on May 17,
2004.
South Main Plan shall mean the Santa Ana South Main Street
Redevelopment Plan originally adopted by Ordinance No. NS-1639 on or
about July 6, 1982, amended by Ordinance No. NS-2234 on or about
October 3,1994; Ordinance No. NS-2256 adopted on or about July 17,
1995; Ordinance NS-2396 in August of 1999; Ordinance NS-2641 on
January 20,2004; and Ordinance No. NS-2652 on May 17, 2004.
Tax increment shall mean property tax revenues allocated to the
Agency pursuant to Section 333670 of the Community Redevelopment
Law.
Time limit on incurring indebtedness shall mean the expiration date
of the time period during which the Agency may establish or incur loans,
advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of tax increment
derived from the project area of a specified redevelopment plan, as
described in subdivision (a) of Section 33333.6 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, subject to all exceptions specified in the Community
Redevelopment Law.
Time limit on plan effectiveness shall mean the expiration date of
the time period during which a specified redevelopment plan is effective,
as described in subdivision (b) of Section 33333.6 of the Community
3
11A-3
Redevelopment Law, subject to all exceptions specified in the Community
Redevelopment Law.
Time limit on receipt of tax increment shall mean the
expiration date of the time period during which the Agency may pay
indebtedness and receive tax increment derived from the project area of a
specified redevelopment plan, as described in subdivision (c) of Section
33333.6 of the Community Redevelopment Law, subject to all exceptions
specified in the Community Redevelopment Law.
SECTION 3: The current time limit on the effectiveness of each of the
eligible Redevelopment Plans is hereby extended by one year and the Agency is
hereby authorized to act with respect to the respective Redevelopment Plan at
any time during which each of the Redevelopment Plans is effective.
SECTION 4: The current time limit on paying indebtedness or receiving
property taxes pursuant to each of the Redevelopment Plans and CRL(except for
the Bristol Redevelopment Plan which is ineligible for the extension) is hereby
extended by one year (from the existing time limit as set forth below) and the
Agency is hereby authorized to act with respect thereto during such extended
period.
Central Cit 2,2014 2,2015 2,2024
Inter-Cit 6,2023 6,2024 6,2033
North Harbor 6, 2023 6, 2024 6, 2033
South Harbor 6,2023 6,2024 6,2033
South Main 6, 2023 6, 2024 Jul 6, 2033
Bristol* Dec. 4, 2030 Dec. 4, 2030 Dec. 4, 2040
* Not eligible for one year extension under SB 1096
2,2025
6,2034
6,2034
6,2034
Jul 6,2034
Dec. 4,2040
SECTION 5. The legislative body has determined that the Agency is in
compliance with the requirements of section 33334.2; the Agency has adopted an
implementation plan in accordance with the requirements of section 33490; the
agency is in compliance with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of section
33413; and the Agency is not subject to sanctions for failure to expend, encumber,
or disburse an excess surplus pursuant to section 33334.12( e).
SECTION 6. The legislative body hereby finds that notice of the public
hearing has been mailed to the governing bodies of the affected taxing entities and
4
11A-4
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once, not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date of the public hearing.
SECTION 7. The legislative body hereby finds that funds used to make the
payment to the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund pursuant to
section 33681.12 would otherwise have been used to pay the costs of projects and
activities necessary to carry out the goals and objectives of the redevelopment
plan.
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and
adopted this Ordinance, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact
that one or more provisions may be declared invalid.
5
11A-5
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
City Attorney
By:
Lisa E. Storck
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Ordinance No. NS-2685 to be the original ordinance adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , 2005, and that said
ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
6
11A-6
SANTA ANA tlTY COONCIL COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY
Minutes of Meeting
January 10, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was convened at 6:25 p.m. in City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th
Floor, Room 831, Santa Ana, California.
ATTENDANCE
Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Alberta Christy, Claudia Alvarez.
Staff present: Assistant City Attorney Paula Coleman, Police Chief Paul Walters,
Fire Chief Phil Garcia, Fire Marshal Lori Smith, Police Lieutenant Bill Tegeler and
Deputy City Attorney Mike Vigliotta
Public present: Ray and Evangeline Gawronski
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved Minutes of the November 8, 2004 meeting.
2. FIREWORKS INFORMATION
Fire Chief Garcia and Fire Marshal Smith presented the draft
Ordinance regarding changes that would impose an 80 percent
residency requirement on fireworks booth applicants. After
discussion, the committee recommended that the proposed
Ordinance be presented to the City Council at a future meeting.
Question from Evangeline Gawronski: What is being done with
illegal fireworks? Staff commented on how Police and Fire
personnel are deployed on July 4 to investigate and physically
confiscate illegal fireworks.
3. IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 69 (DNA)
Chief Walters related to the Committee that the Orange County
Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association will be meeting on this
issue to develop a protocol that all Orange County cities will follow.
This item will be placed on the Public Safety Agenda again at a
future time.
138-1
2
4. TRUANCY UPDATE
Lt. Bill Tegeler reviewed the Orange County Truancy Program and
the efforts of the Santa Ana Unified School District to handle habitual
truants. He also reviewed how the Santa Ana Police Department is
partnering with them to help reduce this problem.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ray Gawronski spoke about possibly getting markets to print public
safety announcements such as hazards of illegal fireworks on their
grocery bags.
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
No Committee comments.
7. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
A. Truancy Update - Follow-up on Possible Grant Funding
B. Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program
C. Police Department's Community Relations Team (CRT)
8. NEXT MEETING DATE - Monday, March 14,2005,6:00 PM, City
Hall 8th Floor Conference Room, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana,
California.
ADJOURNMENT - 7:20 PM
~
PAUL M. WALTERS
Chief of Police
jc
138-2
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT/CODE ENFORCEMENT
Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting convened at 5:53 p.m. in Room 831 of City Hall.
ATTENDANCE
The following Councilmembers were present: Lisa Bist (Via teleconference), Alberta Christy and
Carlos Bustamante
Staff present were: Jim Ross, Executive DirectorlPublic Works Agency; Kenneth Adams,
Assistant Director/Planning and Building Agency; Ben Kaufman, Chief Assistant City Attorney;
George Alvarez, City Engineer; David Biondolillo, Transportation Analyst; and Mary Gonzales,
Projects Manager.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Approved by a vote of 3:0
A. September 28, 2004 Adjourned Meeting
B. October 26, 2004 Meeting Cancelled
2. BANNERS ALONG HUTTON CENTRE
Mary Gonzales requested that the item be officially tabled since the applicant has
formally withdrawn their proposal to move forward with the banner program. No reason
was given by the applicant. Item was tabled by acclimation.
3. LOCOMOTIVE HORNS AND QUIET ZONES
Jim Ross gave an overview of the safety issue concerns raised by the use of passenger
and freight trains horns in urban areas from the national and state perspective. He cited
safety as the paramount concern of the federal transportation agency at all at-grade
crossings of train tracks, public streets and roads particularly in urban areas.
David Biondolillo provided technical backup to highlight the federal proposal to
implement quiet zones and he informed the committee the specific technical
requirements have to be determined. He informed the committee that a federal EIR and
a CalTrans EIR were being undertaken to evaluate safety issues in the Los Angeles -
San Diego Train corridor.
George Alvarez spoke briefly on the passenger train safety issues that were being
addressed at the Orange County Transit Authority.
The committee members asked several questions to clarify technical issues and
received and filed the information received from staff.
138-3
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Debbie McEwen requested the committee agendize a discussion on the staffing issues
related to community preservation.
Julie Stroud informed the committee that she was concerned with the direction of the
MainPlace Mall.
5. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Bist asked a desire to get back to more consistent meeting schedule
and requested that a March meeting be agendized.
Council member Christy asked that staff agendize the issue of illegal garage conversions
throughout the city and requested the community preservation staff issues be brought
forth at a later date.
6. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
The committee members agreed the next meeting be held on March 22 with following
agenda items:
A. Update on Permit Parking
B. Update on the Vending Truck Ordinance and Phase II Ordinance Plan
7. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, March 22, 2005
ADJOURNMENT - 6:55 P.M.
~~~
Kenneth Adams
Assistant Directorl
Planning & Building Agency
S:Council CommINlCE CClNICE Minutes 02-15-05
Neighborhood ImprovemenUCode
Enforcement Council Committee Minutes
2
February 15, 2005
138-4
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT
MINUTES
February 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall, Room 831, 20 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, California.
ATTENDANCE
City Council Committee members present: Councilmember Jose Solorio and
Council member Claudia Alvarez. Councilmember Lisa Bist by telephone.
Staff members present: City Manager, Dave Ream, Community Development Agency
Executive Director Patricia C. Whitaker, Planning and Building Agency Executive
Director Steve Harding, Planning Manager Jay Trevino, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Benjamin Kaufman, Senior Planner Sergio Klotz, Community Preservation Inspector
Alvaro Nunez, Downtown Development Manager Matthew Lamb and Redevelopment
Assistant, Danell Mercado.
Community members present: Tim Rush
AGENDA ITEMS
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 19,2005
Action:
The minutes were approved 3:0
2. PROPOSED CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Maintenance complaints were given to 1315 and 1601 N. Main Street.
Illegal vendors were cited on South Main and Downtown for Valentine Day sales.
The awnings at the Otis Building are in compliance. Building owner indicated to
staff, if planning will approve rod iron treatment on the windows, they would like
the bus stop moved to its original location.
138-5
Code Enforcement continues to work on businesses that have signage that
doesn't match their business name in Downtown.
3. SPURGEON BUILDING
Code Enforcement completed a thorough report on the building inspections. A
notice of violation was issued on 1-28-05 and mailed to the property owner. The
property owner has 60 days to comply with a 30-day extension if requested.
4. S. MAIN STREET STEAM CLEANING & BANNER COSTS
Staff presented cost for steam cleaning colored sidewalks from 1st to Edinger.
Committee requested quarterly cleaning to be budgeted for the 05/06 fiscal year.
Staff presented cost for street light banners on Main Street. Committee desires
the Merchants Association to pay for a majority of the cost to introduce a banner
program on South Main Street.
5. PROJECT UPDATES
a) SWC First and Main Streets - Oriqinal Mike's -
Signage is in compliance. Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) for the restaurant
has been issued with the CofO for the apartments close to issuance.
b) City Place -
Item going to council on February 22, 2005.
c) YMCA-
Both developers have resubmitted proposals. Urban West Strategies
proposal changed slightly from rental units to for sale units. Keyser Marston
has reviewed both proposals and recommends ABCO. The item will go to
closed session on March 7.
d) Court of Appeals -
No update presented.
City Council Committee on Main
Street Development ~ Minutes
2
February 16, 2005
138-6
e) 41h Street Pushcart Status -
Staff is completing final set of specifications. Specification will be sent to
vendor cart attorney for their approval. If approved, item will go to closed
session in March.
f) Sav-On Lofts -
Lofts received approval from Planning. Large mailbox in right of way will be
removed and mailboxes will be placed on each door.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS -
Tim Rush requested information on city funds used, if any, for the property
owner. Staff responded that no subsidy was given to the property owner for the
Surgeon Building. Rush recommended Code Enforcement call owner and
engage him to assist in getting the work completed prior to next step on notice of
violation.
MEETING RECESSED - The meeting was recessed at 6:28 p.m. to Special
Meeting.
MEETING RECONVENED - The meeting was reconvened at 6:55 p.m.
7. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS-
No comments
8. ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
a. Spurgeon Building
b. Land and property uses to support downtown
c. Billboard at railroad tracks on South Main
d. Sav-On (151 & Main) windows open on Main Street
City Council Committee on Main
Street Development ~ Minutes
3
February 16, 2005
138-7
9. NEXT MEETING - March 16, 2005
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. to March 16,2005.
c
Patricia C. Whitaker
Recording Secretary
Community Development Agency
PCW Ilf
City Council Committee on Main
Street Development.. Minutes
4
February 16, 2005
138-8
ClTY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting convened at 6:28 p.m. in City Hall, Room 831, 20 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, California from Regular Meeting.
ATTENDANCE
City Council Committee members present: Council member Jose Solorio and
Councilmember Claudia Alvarez. Councilmember Lisa Bist by telephone.
Staff members present: City Manager, Dave Ream, Community Development Agency
Executive Director Patricia C. Whitaker, Planning and Building Agency Executive
Director Steve Harding, Planning Manager Jay Trevino, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Benjamin Kaufman, Senior Planner Sergio Klotz, Community Preservation Inspector
Alvaro Nunez, Downtown Development Manager Matthew Lamb and Redevelopment
Assistant, Danell Mercado.
Community members present: Tim Rush
AGENDA ITEMS
1. land and property uses to support downtown residential
Committee requested a discussion concerning retail amenities in the downtown
for new residential component. Are there enough amenities to support the
residential units? What is the 5-year plan? Discussion ensued between staff
and committee.
NMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. to Regular Meeting.
l~l~~
Patricia C. V\'hitaker
Recording Secretary
Community Development Agency
PCW/lf
138-9
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT/CODE ENFORCEMENT
Adjourned Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. in Room 831 of City Hall.
ATTENDANCE
The following Councilmembers were present: Lisa Bist and Alberta Christy
Councilmember Carlos Bustamante was an excused absence
Staff present were: Stephen Harding, Executive DirectorlPlanning & Building Agency; Kenneth
Adams, Assistant DirectorlPlanning and Building Agency; Jim Ross, Executive Director/Public
Works Agency; Ben Kaufman, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Bruce Dunams, Community
Preservation Manager; George Alvarez, City Engineer; T.C. Sutaria, City Traffic Engineer; and
Monica Suter, Senior Civil Engineer.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 REGULAR MEETING
Approved by a vote of 2:0 (Bustamante absent)
2. UPDATE ON PERMIT PARKING
Jim Ross offered opening comments on the subject and provided a brief summary of the
item. Monica Suter provided a comprehensive overview of the history of the program
and provided summary sheets to the council committee outlining permit parking
programs rapid growth.
Committee comments recommended a formal appeal process to ET AC for final
decisions for neighborhood associations who may be aggrieved by the staff
determination whether their neighborhoods meet criteria for mandating permit parking.
3. UPDATE ON VENDING TRUCK ORDINANCE AND PHASE II ORDINANCE PLAN
Bruce Dl!nams gave a status report of the mobile vending program. He highlighted
several meetings that staff had with the vendor association to outline the intentions of
the council in adapting the vendor ordinance. Many of the overt problems have been
curtailed by the adoption of the ordinance by the Council. He indicated that the vendor
association was supportive of a stronger local program if it provided a fair opportunity for
them to continue to do business in manner that was cooperative with the community.
Council committee directed staff to ask the association to prepare a letter to the City
Manager outlining its proposal.
138-10
4. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAr=FING
Bruce Dunams provided an overview of staffing changes in Community Preservation
over the past five years. His overview included a detailed list of the comprehensive
community preservation efforts as requested by the City Council during that period.
There was significant public and committee concern for the reduction in staff in
Community Preservation over the past five-year period. Those present expressed a
concern regarding the decline in services provided to the city's neighborhoods due to
these reductions. Committee members requested a detailed year by year break down of
the reduction in staff so they could determine an appropriate budget strategy.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
.:. Misleading real estate advertising of particular Santa Ana companies regarding
properties listed in Santa Ana.
.:. Real Estate disclosure issues associated with misleading advertisement.
.:. Illegal residential units being advertised as available in the greater Santa Ana
community.
.:. Pre -Sale inspection program of residential properties.
.:. Reconsideration of volunteer partiCipation in Community Preservation Program.
.:. Reprioritization of code enforcement efforts.
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None
7. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
A. Discussion of Phase II - Mobile Vending Trucks
B. Pre sale Garage Inspection Program
C. Real Estate Broker Disclosure Program
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 26, 2005
ADJOURNMENT -7:43 P.M.
p-~~
Kenneth Adams
Assistant Director
Planning & Building Agency
S:Council CommlNICE CC/NICE Minutes 03-22-05
Neighborhood ImprovemenVCode
Enforcement Council Committee Minutes
2
March 22, 2005
138-11
138-12
MEMORANDUM
~ 1Y
~
City Council Meeting Date: May 16, 2005
From:
Debra Kurita
Assistant lity Manager
I
. Ross, Executive Director
orks Agency
Date: May 2, 2005
To:
ineer is Reviewin Final Tract Ma No. 16753 for Approval
Pursuant to Section 34-183 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, this memo provides
notice that the City Engineer has received Final Tract Map No. 16753 (a portion of
City Tract Map No. 2004-01, County Tract No. 16558), for 900-920 East Santa Ana
Boulevard (Exhibit I), from the owner, Santa Ana Transit Village, LLC, and is in the
process of reviewing the map for final approval. The Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-
01 was approved by the City Council on April 19, 2004. The City Engineer shall
approve or disapprove this map within 10 days after the City Council meeting of May
16,2005.
cc: Mayor and City Council
City Manager
Clerk of the Council
FinalT ractMap 16753ReviewNotice5 _ 16_05
17 A-1
~TA I>NA BLVD.
W
au
~I
I~--
~
I
-l
---l
W
au
~
III
01
~
~
~
l
"-
~
"-
~S/~
"-~
"-
~
"-
~ I
"-~
EXHIBIT I
SANTA ANA City Council Title:
, PWA t Agenda Date TRACT NO. 16753
, , 900-920 EAST SANTA ANA BLVD
Mllt Io1JlICS IIDCI MAY 16, 2005
17 A-2
,
~
N.T.S.
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
PLASTIC TRASH CAN LINERS
(SPEC. NO. 04-039)
APPROVED
o As Rec:ommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
4/
1~
. --I
I ~/
\ / / // .
v~t't:i :l1c;;Z<-~__-
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contract with S&G Diversified Products, formerly Spectrum
Packing for plastic trash can liners for a 12-month period in an annual
amount not to exceed $27,298.
DISCUSSION
The Central Stores section of the
Agency provides plastic trash can
throughout the City. The contract
designed to provide quality products
quantity pricing.
Finance and Management Services
liners to various departments
for plastic trash can liners is
at significant savings based on
On May 17, 2004, the City Council awarded a contract to S&G Diversified
Products, formerly Spectrum Packaging for a 12-month period, with
provision for two 12-month renewals. The vendor has agreed to renew
the contract; however, the vendor has requested a 17 percent increase
due to increases from the manufacturer as a result of rising costs for
petroleum based products. The vendor has performed satisfactorily
during the past contract period, and staff recommends the first renewal
of the contract.
22A-1
CS J8:-1
Contract Renewal for Plastic Trash Can Liners
(Spec. 04-039)
May 16, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the various departmental Operating Materials and
Supplies accounts (obj ect code 6391). The amount of the contract is
estimated, as the actual expenditures will depend upon the requirements
throughout the annual period.
':\ ~\~ \~l- ~) 'l\.~:-. A-J
r ~ Franci~co Gutierrez L I
~~Executlve Director rv
Finance & Management Services Agency
FG/TO/04-039-R.2:sp
22A-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
RADAR SPEED DISPLAY TRAILERS
(SPEC. NO. 05-039)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 15t Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
~,
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Reject Bid 'A' from Kustom Signals, Inc. as nonresponsive.
2. Award a contract to U.S. Traffic Corporation for two radar speed
display trailers in an amount not to exceed $19,707.47.
DISCUSSION
In September 2004, the Public Works Agency accepted a $350,000 Santa Ana
Interagency Pedestrian Safety Program grant from the California Office
of Traffic Safety. The grant provides funding to replace two outdated
radar trailers. The new radar speed display trailers are useful in
deterring motorists from driving in excess of posted speed limits.
Consistent with the City's Standard Procedure for managing motorist
driving speeds, the radar trailers will be located on residential
streets throughout the City.
The notice inviting bids was advertised on April 13 and 15, 2005, and
bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations and bids received
is as follows:
11 Invitations For Bid mailed
5 Bids received
Bids were received, opened on April 26, 2005 and evaluated (Exhibit 1).
Kustom Signals, Inc. (Bid 'A') was for a different make of radar trailer
with a smaller amber display screen and is therefore nonresponsive to
the specification. The bid from U.S. Traffic Corporation is responsive
to the specifications and meets the City's requirements.
228-1
Contract Award for Radar Speed Display Trailers
(Spec. No. 05-039)
May 16, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Office of Safety Grant Pedestrian Safety
Public Works Agency Machinery & Equipment account (account no. 165-338-
6641) .
if
iU
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
t~fl~~.
f~)Franci~co G~tierrez I if
Executlve Dlrector
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency ~
.--
/
i
J es G. Ross
xecutive Director
Public Works Agency
I..
~JGR/KM/05-039.9:SP
228-2
ABSTRACT OF BIDS
CONTRACT AWARD FOR RADAR
SPEED DISPLAY TRAILERS
(SPEC. 05-039)
Vendor
U.S. Traffic
Corporation
BID
Location
Santa Fe
Springs, CA
Terms
Net 30
Delivery
30 days
1 Trailer
$ 9,145.00
2 Trailers
$18,290.00
Sales tax
$ 1,417.47
TOTAL
$19,707.47
Trailer
Sunray 115
2005
SUMMARY OF BID AWARD:
TOTAL AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF:
RUZ Systems
Inc.
Apache
Junction
AZ
Net 30
30 days
$ 9,680.00
$19,360.00
$ 1,500.40
$20,860.40
RUZ FAST-800
2005
Kustom
Signals
Bid 'B'
Lenexa
Kansas
Net 30
60 days
$13,472.00
$26,944.00
$ 2,088.16
$29,032.16
Kustom
Signals
SMART
Model II
2005
U.S. Traffic Corporation
$19,707.47
Kustom Signals, Inc. (Bid 'A') is considered nonresponsive.
EXHIBIT 1
228-3
Intuitive
Control Sys
State College
PA
Net 30
14 days
$22,679.00
$45,357.00
$ 3,515.17
$50,022.17
SPEED Sentry
4000078 '05
228-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
.~
\-..cducat,on l~'
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
INCIDENT COMMAND VEHICLES
(SPEC. NO. 05-041)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
f?'
(--) /'~/7 /J
~t..:I// 0 !0t';c"~
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to Wondries
incident command vehicles with
$165,608.28.
Fleet Group for the
electronic equipment
purchase of two
in the amount of
DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2004, the City Council accepted a $15 million Urban Area
Security Initiative grant from the federal Department of Homeland
Security, through the State of California, Office of Homeland Security.
This ini tiati ve was designed to enhance the domestic preparedness of
urban areas by ensuring that all emergency first responders have
adequate equipment and systems to prevent, respond to and recover from
acts of terrorism. The grant provides total reimbursement to local
agencies for equipment purchases approved and authorized by the Office
of Disaster Preparedness.
The Police Department requires two incident command vehicles that can
be dispatched to any emergency incidents within Santa Ana that require
extensive coordination of responding emergency units. The vehicles can
be used as command posts, and will be equipped with electronic
equipment such as multiple radios and a television monitor to allow for
enhanced communication capabilities and monitoring and evaluation of
large incidents. The vehicles will also carry the plans, policies and
procedures, and maps necessary to effectively coordinate the actions of
the responding emergency units.
22C-1
CS JB3
Contract Award for Incident Command Vehicles
(Spec. No. 05-041)
May 16, 2005
Page 2
The notice inviting bids was advertised on April 11 and 13,
bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations
received is as follows:
2005, and
and bids
7 Invitations For Bid mailed
1 Invitation For Bid mailed to Santa Ana vendor
2 Invitations For Bid received
Bids were received and opened on April 25, 2005. The bid received from
Wondries Fleet Group is responsive to the specifications and meets the
City's requirements. Bid results are as follows:
Vendor:
Amount:
Wondries Fleet Group
Lake Chevrolet
$165,608.28
$166,310.23
FI SCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) Urban
Areas Security Ini tiati ve (UASI) Grant Machinery and Equipment account
(account no. 125-331-6641).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
I ' ~'-~
( 1/_ {
-----JL~
"\~ I'I,I,\'\ ~ ..... ~.~
~Francisco Gutierrez ~w
Executive Director f
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
PMW/TO/05-041.7:sp
22C-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
TOW VEHICLE
(SPEC. NO. 05-043)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
r
Mtt~~C2A-~
,
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to Lake Chevrolet for the purchase of a tow vehicle
with electronic equipment in the amount of $49,687.97.
DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2004, the City Council accepted a $15 million Urban Area
Security Initiative grant from the federal Department of Homeland
Security, through the State of California, Office of Homeland Security.
This initiative was designed to enhance the domestic preparedness of
urban areas by ensuring that all emergency first responders have
adequate equipment and systems to prevent, respond to and recover from
acts of terrorism. The grant provides total reimbursement to local
agencies for equipment purchases approved and authorized by the Office
of Disaster Preparedness.
The Police Department requires a tow vehicle that will be used to move
the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) equipment trailers. The tow
vehicle will be equipped with emergency response equipment, red lights
and siren, allowing it to respond to a WMD event or a terrorist
incident occurring within the Santa Ana Urban area.
The notice inviting bids was advertised on April 13 and 15,
bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations
received is as follows:
2005, and
and bids
7 Invitations For Bid mailed
1 Invitation For Bid mailed to Santa Ana vendor
2 Invitations For Bid received
220-1
CS 381
Contract Award for Tow Vehicle
(Spec. No. 05-043)
May 16, 2005
Page 2
Bids were received and opened on April 27, 2005. The bid received from
Lake Chevrolet is responsive to the specifications and meets the City's
requirements. Bid results are as follows:
Vendor:
Amount:
Lake Chevrolet
Maurice J. Sopp and Son
$49,687.97
$55,599.00
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for are available in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) Urban
Areas Security Ini tiati ve (UASI) Grant Machinery and Equipment account
(account no. 125-331-6641).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~/ lll\
.j~ ~
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
~l\f\:i~~~""'A} ~:- ~
~k Francisco Gutierrez
~\ Executi ve Director fJ
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
PMW/TO/05-043.7:sp
220-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
FIRE RESCUE SAWS
(SPEC. NO. 05-047)
APPROVED
o As ReGommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
1j,
'--'AI
// ~/)
Wh~ ../ /17&0---
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to L.N. Curtis & Sons for fire
accessories and miscellaneous firefighting equipment
$18,984.34.
rescue
in the
saws and
amount of
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department uses fire rescue saws during firefighting
operations to ventilate buildings and release hot gases and smoke, thus
allowing for safer rescue conditions for the firefighters. There are
four Cutters Edge fire rescue saws currently in service. However, the
saws have reached their expected life cycle and require replacement.
Cutters Edge equipment is specifically designed for firefighting and
staff has determined that L. N. Curtis & Sons is the only source for
sales and service for Cutters Edge equipment for California.
In addition, a contingency has been included to allow for miscellaneous
firefighting equipment purchases that are required on a recurring basis
as a result of an informal bid process. L. N. Curtis & Sons has been
providing firefighting equipment and service to the Fire Department for
over 15 years, and has performed satisfactorily. Staff recommends
authorization of the award to L.N. Curtis & Sons.
22E-1
CS 38;,
Contract Award for Fire Rescue Saws
(Spec. 05-047)
May 16, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Fire Maintenance Operating Materials &
Supplies account (account no. 11-327-6391).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
::=::>
~~~~~!' A} ~,,~ ~-
cf<Francisco Gutierrez '" r
Executive Director ~
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
I
i
~G/TO/05-047.3:SP
)
22E-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
MAY 16, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
(SPEC. NO. 05-055)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
) ~/)
~~t-<-/~f/{ ~?~~~
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Amend the contract with Grainger,
by $10,000 for the purchase of
amount not to exceed $20,000.
Inc. to increase the aggregate limit
miscellaneous supplies in an annual
DISCUSSION
The City establishes an annual blanket order list consisting of vendors
that provide supplies and services that are required by agencies on a
consistent basis. Grainger, Inc., a Santa Ana vendor, has provided
hand tools, welding supplies, ladders and a variety of sundry supplies
to all City agencies. The vendor offers reliable service and
competi ti ve pricing and has consistently been the lowest responsive
bidder on low cost items. As such, staff recommends Council approval
of an amendment to the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the various departmental Operating Materials and
Supplies accounts (object code 6391).
':\~~~~ ~~ ~~. - ,
~Francisco Gutierrez ~ I
Executive Director JW
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/KM/05-055-A.2:sp
22F-1
CS 383
22F-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR
PEST CONTROL SERVICE
(SPEC. NO. 05-056)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
yJ~
Oa,,~ ;c;L,-_
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Amend the contract with Antimi te Termite and Pest Control to increase
the aggregate limit by $5,000 for pest control services, in an annual
amount not to exceed $15,000.
DISCUSSION
The City establishes an annual list consisting of vendors that provide
supplies and services that are required by agencies on a consistent
basis. Antimi te Termite and Pest Control has been a provider of pest
control services for various City agencies. Antimi te Termite and Pest
Control offers reliable service, competitive pricing, and has
consistently been the lowest responsive bidder on low cost items.
During the past year, the high seasonal rainfall caused insects to seek
shelter indoors. As a result, there was an increase in demand for pest
control services. Staff requests approval to increase the aggregate
limi t for Antimi te Termite and Pest Control to provide uninterrupted
pest control services.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the various departmental Other Contract Services
accounts (object code 6291)
'"\~~.....(,-, ~~."'""
~ Francisco Gutierrez tf
~" Executive Director TV
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/WO/05-056-A.2:sp
22G-1
CS 383
22G-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
~
~
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
CONTRACT AWARD FOR HERITAGE
PARK AND EDDIE WEST STADIUM
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT 04-6405)
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
I RECOMMENDED ACTION
j
1. Award a contract to Excel Paving Company, the lowest responsible
bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices for an estimated amount of
$380,787 for construction of Heritage Park and Eddie West Stadium
Parking Lot Improvements.
2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of
$476,000.
DISCUSSION
The parking lot surfaces at Heritage Park and Eddie West Stadium are
deteriorating due to weather, age and heavy usage (Exhibit 1). The
adj acent walkways and wheelchair ramps are also in various stages of
disrepair and require replacement. This project provides for
reconstruction of asphalt pavement, replacement of damaged concrete
walkways and wheelchair ramps. Once completed, these improvements will
increase the surface drainage and enhance the visual appearance of the
parking lots.
The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on March 25 and 28, 2005, and
bids were opened on April 14, 2005. A summary of the bid invitations
mailed, the bids received, and the bid results follows.
Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: 11
Contractors requesting bidding documents: 7
Bids received: 3
Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 0
23A-1
Project 04-6405
Heritage Park and Eddie West
Stadium Parking Lot Improvements
May 16, 2005
Page 2
NAME OF BIDDER
CITY
BID AMOUNT
1.
2.
3.
Excel Paving Company
R.J. Noble Company
United Contractors
Long Beach
Orange
Santa Fe Springs
$380,787
$408,807
$438,605
A total of 3 bids were received and all were responsive. The lowest
responsive bid of $380,787 was submitted by Excel Paving Company, which
is above the Engineer's estimate of $334,341.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the project
is exempt from further review. Categorical Exemption ER 2004-276 has
been filed for Eddie West Stadium and ER 2003 -274 has been filed for
Heritage Park.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Funding Analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of
$476,000 for the project (Exhibit 2). Funds are available in the Capital
Outlay Fund (account no. 51-244-6631) I the Robert Z'Berg Harris Grant
Fund (account no. 161-270-6631), and the Park Acquisition & Development
Fund (account no. 301-232-6631).
~ ~r--
James G. oss
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
/'
/1
~~)
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
I::'
JGR\GA\DI\ET\RFCA\05-16-05 RFCA 04-6405 50 WD
23A-2
~
N.T.S.
EDDIE WEST STADIUM
~L-1
CIVIC CENTER DR
L
e-
Vi
L
o
e-
--l
w
:r:
l/)
e-
v'
6TH 5T
~
~
SMJT A MJA BL VO
~~r n ,-
HERITAGE PARK
--l
CL e-
v' V-)
w w
cr CL
0
, ~
<( :r:
S:
w
~
~
CL
<( Q
(=1
WATI<INS Wl
<(
e-
LL
~
w
u
lr
,--
_ PROJECT LIMITS
PlllLC _5 ACEIlCI
EXHIBIT 1
11I01 10 $C.ILEI
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA DATE:
MAY 16. 2005
Title:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR HERITAGE PARK
AND EDDIE WEST STADIUM PARKING
LOT IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 04-6405)
23A-3
FUNDING ANALYSIS
PROJECT 04-6405
HERITAGE PARK AND EDDIE WEST STADIUM PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Construction Contract
Contract Administration
Inspection and Testing
Survey
Contingencies
$380,787
15,234
23,400
18,500
38,079
$476,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Exhibit 2
23A-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
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
AMENDMENT TO MASTER FUNDING
AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
Clerk of the Council to execute Amendment No. 10 to the Master Funding
Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority for projects in
the Combined Transportation Funding Program and the Bicycle and
pedestrian Facilities Program.
DISCUSSION
On June 5, 1995, the City Council approved a Master Funding Agreement
(MFA) with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The
primary purpose of this agreement was to streamline the funding
allocation process for projects funded through the Combined
Transportation Funding Program and the Bicycle and pedestrian Facilities
Program. The MFA also specifies the roles and responsibilities of the
City and OCTA. Amendment No. 10 is required to incorporate minor
adjustments made to projects during the semi-annual review conducted in
September 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ames G. Ross
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
5 16-05 RFCA MFA Amendment No. 10 (DWB)
25A-1
25A-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
AGREEMENTS FOR RIGHT OF WAY
CONSULTING SERVICES
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
l
C-/2'
I
, / ,/
/ 'eLL ,,'//J20_--
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
r=:/
,- .l
I
FILE NUMBER
~ECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements for right of way services
with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. and Paragon Partners Ltd. for an
amount not to exceed $150,000 each.
DISCUSSION
Each year the Public Works Agency manages roadway widening projects that
require right of way services. The roadway widening project currently
underway is Bristol Street from Pine Street to Third Street. The required
right of way services include real estate appraisals, property
acquisition, relocation assistance and interim property management. These
types of services are needed to acquire and clear the property needed for
the project.
In response to a request for proposals, three firms submitted proposals
for right of way services. Staff members from the Public Works Agency
and City Attorney's Office evaluated the proposals.
Each firm was rated according to its qualifications, past experience and
capacity to perform the required work. Based on the proposals submitted,
the ratings for the three firms are as follows:
RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES
RATING
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
Paragon Partners Ltd
Marmac Field Services
84
80
63
258-1
Agreements for Right-of-Way Consulting Services
May 16, 2005
Page 2
Staff recommends selection of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc and Paragon
Partners Ltd. Their proposals demonstrated that these firms have vast
experience in the required fields, a good understanding of the proj ect
objectives, and strong project teams. The rate schedules for these firms
were compared. The rates are consistent, reasonable, and in line with the
staff estimates.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the consultant services will be charged to the appropriate
projects in the capital improvement program.
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
James G. Ross
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
'i-\\t}~\. ~J' J. l ~ -k- ...
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
,iI~
258-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH W.
KOO AND ASSOCIATES FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BRIDGES
APPROVED
D As Recommended
D As Amended
D Ordinance on 1st Reading
D Ordinance on 2nd Reading
D Implementing Resolution
D Set Public Hearing For
/'
Qt!hG?~
C Y MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
~
FILE NUMBER
J/ RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment to the agreement with W.
Koo and Associates in the amount of $30,000 for a total contract amount
of $584,360.
DISCUSSION
The City retained the firm of W. Koo and Associates to design the seismic
retrofits of First Street, Fifth Street, and McFadden Avenue bridges over
the Santa Ana River. On January 18, 2005, Council awarded a contract to
D. W Powell Construction, Inc. to perform the seismic retrofit
construction. As part of the construction, a geotechnical engineer is
required to monitor the foundation pile driving.
The original contract with W. Koo and Associates did not include the
monitoring of the pile driving. Therefore, an increase in the amount of
$30,000 to the contract is required to perform these services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
recommended action is not considered a CEQA proj ect . Therefore, no
environmental documentation is required.
25C-1
Amendment To Agreement for Engineering Services
For Seismic Retrofit of Bridges
May 16, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the First Street, Fifth Street, and McFadden
Avenue Seismic Bridge Retrofit projects (account no. 59-551-6631, project
nos. 1800, 1801, 1802).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
-:;::?~p~
-=t\\t'o )~('~~ ~ J '\ ~-\:-.
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
j1./~
James G. Ross
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
25C-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD TO IMPROVE RAILROAD
CROSSING ON FLOWER STREET
(PROJECT 1768)
/
a,/!iA2
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
\l/. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Union Pacific
Railroad Company for improvements to the Flower Street railroad crossing
for a total cost of $64,849.
DISCUSSION
Staff has received Transportation Demand Management funds for the
improvement of the Flower Street Bike Trail Gap Closure. Construction is
anticipated to begin in March 2006. When completed, it will join the
recently constructed Alton/Maple Bike Trail to the south and the existing
Flower Street Bike Trail to the north at Dyer/Segerstrom Road (Exhibit
1). Within the limits of this project, the bike trail crosses over the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track.
City staff has met with representatives from UPRR to obtain a license to
construct and maintain the bike trail across their right-of-way.
Additionally, as part of the gap closure project, the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires the City to upgrade the existing
gate crossing signal flashing lenses for safety enhancement at the City's
cost.
The cost of improvements for the railroad crossing enhancements and
license is $64,849. These safety enhancements will provide improved
warning and safety to the pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists in the
vicinity of the railroad crossing.
250-1
Agreement With
Union Pacific Railroad Company
May 16, 2005
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Environmental Review No. 2000-078 has been completed and a Categorical
Exemption has been filed for this project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Measure M Street Construction Fund (account
no. 32-551-6631).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~~~
James G. Ross
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
.:I;~",~~ "'sy, ~ ~ -
Francisco utierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
n,/">
, r
250-2
~I
]
]
J
J
rUI IUODDDDIFIRsT
!DDDD :
WILLITS
FIRST
/ /
IUI
ILJI
...J
o
I-
CI)
ii:
Cl
a:::D
w .
~ ~
o Z
...J _
u. ~
EDINGER ::iE
wi
~I
~I
Q)
Ci_
cu.-
~~
0)1-
cQ)
._~
:miD
><
w
ISEGERJ[ I]
Proposed Flower
Street Bike Trail
,Gosure
;;
~
'"
<.)
Existing Flower Street
Bike Trail
0:::
o
CIl
0:::
<l
:r:
z
~
OJ
V>
~
OJ
'"
~=r, - MacARTHUR
\ I II
Existing Alton Rail Trail
Existing Alton/Maple
Bike Trail
SANTA ANA
, PW A t
, ,
City Council
Agenda Date
Title: AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD TO IMPROVE
RAILROAD CROSSING ON FLOWER ST.
ECT NO. 1768)
EXHIBIT 1
MAY 16, 2005
Pleu:: 1000S AGHCY
250-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~.
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
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
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR
FRANKLIN-COVEY COMPANY
C:~~~
T MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment to the agreement with
the Franklin-Covey Company to increase the aggregate limit by $6,000 for
the purchase of training materials in an annual amount not to exceed
$16,000.
DISCUSSION
The City has instituted a comprehensive Public Business Academy (PBA)
program for professional development. The goal of the Academy is to
enhance the knowledge and skills of the City's employees and to reinforce
their understanding of the organization's purpose, vision, and goals.
The Academy provides city employees with seminars that teach cutting edge
public administration theory and techniques in such areas as Total
Quality Management, public sector finance, decision-making and leadership
development.
The City utilizes training materials from the Franklin-Covey Company, a
recognized leader in the field of management and leadership development,
for general training and its PBA program. In order to provide further
training, additional materials are required. The purchase of the
addi tional materials, when added to the vendor's fiscal purchases will
exceed the $10,000 aggregate total, and requires Council approval. Staff
recommends Council approval of an amendment to the agreement.
25E-1
Agreement Amendment for
Franklin-Covey Company
May 16, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Quality & Management Training account (account
no. 88-141-6191).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~~e~
Executive Director
Personnel Services Agency
f~ rf~
r/Franci~co
Executlve
Finance &
25E-2
Gutierrez
Director
Management Services Agency
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
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
MAY 16, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION
PLANS, ANNUAL BUDGET, AND
SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
/)
;' /1 '/72
I/dlr:'-/V /(; (~:.--
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
/'
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution that amends the City's Basic Management
Classification and Compensation Plan (Resolution No. 91- 066) and
amends the Fiscal Year 2004 - 05 Annual Budget to reallocate two
positions.
2. Adopt an ordinance identifying the Deputy City Manager for
Development Services as on officer of the City.
3. Adopt a resolution that identifies the officers who would serve as
Acting City Manager if the City Manager is unavailable.
DISCUSSION
Consistent with the City's commitment to continuous improvement in service
delivery, a review of organizational structure was recently conducted to
determine the most efficient and effective method to manage the City's
development-related activities. As a result of this review, the City
Manager is proposing the creation of an executive management
classification titled Deputy City Manager for Development Services that
will be responsible for overseeing development-related activities city-
wide. The City Manager proposes to reallocate the current position of
Executive Director of Planning and Building to the new title at no change
in salary. In addition, the City Manager is proposing the reallocation of
the Planning Manager position to Executive Director of Planning and
Building Safety. This position will manage the operations of the Planning
and Building Agency and will be designated the City's building official
for signature purposes.
The City Manager also proposes appropriate changes to the Santa Ana
Municipal Code to align these actions with relevant sections concerning
titling and management succession in the event the City Manager is
unavailable.
50A-1
cs. 383
Classification/Compensation Plan
May 16, 2005
Page 2
Finally, as part of the City's on-going effort to maintain market
competitiveness and internal compensation equity, it is recommended that
the salary for the job classification Executive Director of Public Works
be increased by 5.0% in order to properly compensate the position and
maintain an industry-standard salary rate for this classification.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal impact figures below represent estimated costs for the
remainder of the fiscal year.
Planning and Building Agency
Reallocation of one Executive Director of Planning and Building (EM)
position to Deputy City Manager for Development Services (EM): no fiscal
impact
Reallocation of one Planning Manager (MM) position to Executive Director
of Planning and Building Safety (EM): $834
Public Works Agency
Salary upgrade for Executive Director of Public Works (EM) classification:
$586
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~.~;\-~rA~ ~~.
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance and Mgmt. Services Agencyp~
r
50A-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-050
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 91-066 TO
EFFECT CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE CITY'S BASIC
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
EXECUTIVE AND MIDDLE MANAGEMENT, PROVIDE AN
INCREASE IN SALARY FOR THE UNREPRESENTED
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT CLASS OF EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS (EM), AND AMEND THE
ANNUAL BUDGET TO REALLOCATE TWO FULL TIME
POSITIONS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. Section 1004, Article X of the City Charter of the City of Santa Ana
requires the City Manager to prepare, install and maintain a position
classification and pay plan subject to civil service rules and regulations
and the approval of the City Council.
B. On July 1, 1991, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 91-
066, re-establishing the Basic Classification and Compensation Plan for
classes of employment designated as unrepresented Executive
Management (EM) and Middle Management (MM).
C. On June 21, 2004, the City Council passed and adopted Ordinance No.
NS-2653, which establishes the City's Annual Budget, authorizing position
allocations for Fiscal Year 2004-2005, and which sets forth the
requirement that alterations in the allocation of authorized positions be
reviewed and approved by the City Council.
D. The City Manager proposes to delete one unrepresented executive
management classification title, establish one new unrepresented
executive management title, increase the salary for the Executive Director
of Public Works (EM) and reallocate two positions in the current Annual
Budget.
E. It is now desired to amend Council Resolution No. 91-066, as amended,
and the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget, as amended, in order to effect
these changes.
50A-3
Section 2: That Section 3A of Resolution No. 91-066, as amended, is hereby
further amended by:
A. deleting the unrepresented classification title of Executive Director of
Planning and Building
B. adding the unrepresented classification title of Deputy City Manager for
Development Services at the fifteen-step salary rate range of EM-37
($108,684-153,576 per year).
C. designating the newly created classification title of Deputy City Manager
for Development Services as Executive Management by assigning the
parenthetical identifier "EM" after this classification title.
D. providing an equity salary adjustment increasing the fifteen-step salary
rate range assigned to the unrepresented executive management
classification title of Executive Director of Public Works (EM) from EM-33
($98,4 72-139,128 per year) to EM-35 ($103,464-146,160 per year).
Section 3: That Ordinance No. NS-2653, the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year
2004-2005, as amended, is hereby further amended by:
A. reallocating one position from the classification title of Executive Director
of Planning and Building (EM) to the classification title of Deputy City
Manager for Development Services (EM).
B. reallocating one position from the classification title of Planning Manager
(MM) to the classification title of Executive Director of Planning and
Building Safety (EM).
Section 4: That except as amended by this Resolution, all other provisions of
Resolution No. 91-066, as amended, and the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005,
as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5: That this Resolution shall be operative immediately upon its date of
adoption.
ADOPTED this _ day of May, 2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
50A-4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
City Attorney
By:
Joseph Straka
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
Councilmembers
NOES:
Councilmembers
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT:
Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2005-050 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
50A-5
JWF 5/4/05
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2686
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SECTIONS 2-300
AND 2-300.5 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ESTABLISH THE TITLE OF DEPUTY
CITY MANAGER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. In order to better coordinate development policy and practices in
the City, the City Council has established the title of Deputy City
Manager for Development Services.
B. The City Council desires to identify the Deputy City Manager for
Development Services as an officer of the City, and to make other
technical changes in the titles of said officers.
B. All provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which are repeated
herein are repeated solely in order to comply with the provisions of
section 418 of the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Any such
restatement of existing provisions of the Code is not intended, nor
shall it be interpreted, as constituting a new action or decision of
the City Council, but rather such provisions are repeated for
tracking purposes only in conformance with the Charter.
Section 2. Section 2-300 of the Santa Ana Municipal is hereby amended to add
reference to the deputy city manager for development services, and renumber
appropriately, so that it shall read as follows (new text in bold):
Sec. 2-300. City officers and department heads.
(a) The following are officers of the City of Santa Ana:
(1) Members of the city council;
(2) City manager;
(3) City attorney;
(4) Clerk of the council;
Ordinance No. NS-2686
Page 1 of 3
50A-6
(5) Assistant city manager;
(6) Deputy city manager for development services
(7) Police chief;
(8) Fire chief;
(9) Executive director of finance and management services;
(10) Executive director of public works;
(11) Executive director of parks, recreation and community services;
(12) Executive director of personnel services;
(13) Library director;
(14) Executive director of community development;
(15) Executive director of planning and building safety.
Section 3. Section 3-300.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby
amended, such that it reads as follows (new language in bold, deleted language in strikeout
for tracking purposes only):
Sec. 2-300.5. Executive Director of Planning and Building Safety.
All references in this Code, or in any resolution, agreement, regulation,
authorization or directive of the city council, the city manager or any board
or commission of the City of Santa Ana, or in any document whatsoever
that predates the effective date of this ordinance, to the planning director,
the building director, the director of building safety, the director of planning
and development service, or the deputy city manager for development
services, shall be deemed references to executive director of planning and
building safety.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision
of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana
hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that
anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS-2686
Page 2 of 4
50A-7
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that
the attached Ordinance No. NS-2686 to be the original ordinance adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , and that said
ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS-2686
Page 3 of 3
50A-8
JWF 5/09/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA REPEALING RESOLUTION 90-109
DESIGNATING THE OFFICERS OF THE CITY
AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY MANAGER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CITY
MANAGER
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. By Resolution 90-109, the City Council deputized certain city officers with
the power to act as city manager under certain circumstances.
B. With changes among officers of the City, the City Council finds it
necessary and advisable to repeal resolution 90-109 and revise the order
of delegation of powers of acting city manager.
Section 2. Resolution 90-109 is hereby repealed and shall have no further
force or effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the repeal of said resolution shall have
no effect upon any action taken by any city officer pursuant thereto prior to the effective
date of this resolution.
Section 3. The following officers of the city are deputized to exercise any and
all authority granted to the office of the City Manager by the charter and ordinances of
the City of Santa Ana, by any resolution or agreement approved by the City Council of
the City of Santa Ana, or by any other legal authority:
(1) Assistant City Manager
(2) Deputy City Manager for Development Services
(3) Chief of Police
(4) Fire Chief
(5) Public Works Director
Each officer on the above list shall be considered senior to the officers following such
officer on the above list for purposes of this resolution. For purposes of this resolution,
the term "City Manager" shall include any officer designated as "Acting City Manager"
by the City Council.
50A-9
Resolution No. 2005-051
Page 1 of 3
Section 4. The authority granted by section 1 of this resolution shall only be
exercised by the officers designated therein only in accordance with the following
standards:
(a) The authority shall be exercised only in the absence of the City Manager and
all senior officers.
(b) The authority shall be exercised only as to matters which cannot reasonably
be postponed until the return of the city Manager or a senior officer or as to minor
and routine matters.
Section 5. No action by an officer designated in section 3 of this Resolution
pursuant to the authority granted therein shall be invalid by reason of noncompliance
with the standards set forth in section 4 of this resolution. However, the City Manager or
a senior officer shall have the same authority to rescind such action as if such action
had been taken by the City Manager or such senior officer in the first instance.
Section 6. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to limit the existing
authority of the City Manager to delegate matters for action by subordinate officers or
employees or to designate subordinate officers or employees to act as his
representative on any matter.
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2005-051
Page 2 of 3
50A-1 0
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-051 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
50A-11
Resolution No. 2005-051
Page 3 of 3
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~'f~
~~~}
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
PRESERVE AMERICA COMMUNITY PROGRAM
APPLICATION
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
~
(lk17a~-
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution to direct staff to submit an application to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Parks Service
to designate the City of Santa Ana as a "Preserve America Community".
BACKGROUND
The "Preserve
developed in
Preservation
Agriculture,
components,
Communities.
America" program is a federal government initiative
cooperation with the Advisory Council on Historic
and the U.S. Departments of the Interior, Commerce,
and Housing and Urban Development. It has several
one of which is the designation of Preserve America
Preserve America Community designation will be granted to communities
that meet three general criteria:
1. The community has recently supported a historic or cultural
preservation proj ect that promotes heritage tourism or otherwise
fosters economic vitality, and involves a public-private partnership
between government entities and at least one civic association,
nonprofit, and/or business enterprise.
2.
The governing
indicating its
assets.
body of the
commitment
community has adopted
to the preservation of
a resolution
its heritage
3. The community meets at least five criteria specified in three broad
categories: discovering heritage through historic places, protecting
historic resources, and promoting historic assets.
55A-1
Preserve America Community Program Application
May 16, 2005
Page 2
DISCUSSION
As of January 2005, there were 220 designated Preserve America
communities in 34 States, including one American Indian tribe. In the
State of California, there are three cities that have attained this
special designation: Fresno, Monterey and Santa Monica. It is a
prestigious title that also offers several benefits. Benefits of
designation include:
. White House recognition;
. A certificate of recognition;
· Potential advantage in obtaining grant funding;
· Potential for obtaining future Preserve America grant funding;
· A Preserve America Community road sign;
· Authorization to use the Preserve America logo on signs, flags,
banners, and promotional materials;
· Listing in a Web-based Preserve America Community directory;
· Inclusion in national and regional press releases;
· Official notification of designation to State tourism offices and
visitor bureaus; and
· Enhanced community visibility and pride.
The City of Santa Ana achieved Certified Local Government status with the
State of California in 2001, for its commitment to historic preservation.
The unique historic character of the City's downtown and neighborhoods is
an asset that will be promoted through the Preserve America Community
Program. The distinguished status offered to cities selected for this
program will enhance Santa Ana's image and economic development
potential. A Preserve America Community designation will serve to enhance
the awareness of historic preservation in the Santa Ana community, and
allows the potential for Santa Ana to seek opportunities for funding
preservation programs. Therefore, it is recommended that the City
Council adopt a resolution to direct city staff to submit a Preserve
America Community application to the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation.
55A-2
Preserve America Community Program Application
May 16, 2005
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
St~{'~~g
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
HS:rb
hslPreserve _America_Application _ MaterialslPreserve _ America.cc
55A-3
KO - 5/10/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-048
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA TO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE NATIONAL PARKS
SERVICE TO DESIGNATE THE CITY AS A "PRESERVE
AMERICA COMMUNITY"
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. Preserve America is a White House initiative developed in cooperation
with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the U.S. Department of
the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B. The goals of this initiative include a greater shared knowledge about our
Nation's past, strengthened regional identities and local pride, increased
local participation in preserving the country's irreplaceable cultural and
natural heritage assets, and support for the economic vitality of
communities.
C. This initiative is compatible with our community's interests and goals
related to historic preservation.
D. Designation as a Preserve America Community will improve our
community's ability to protect and promote its historical resources.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana shall apply for the
designation of the City of Santa Ana as a Preserve America Community. The City
Council of the City of Santa Ana will protect and celebrate our heritage, use our historic
assets for economic development and community revitalization, and encourage people
to experience and appreciate local historic resources through education and heritage
tourism programs.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 1 of 2
55A-4
ADOPTED this
day of May, 2005
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Council members:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:
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. 2005-048 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
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 2 of 2
55A-5
55A-6
2810 3/4 South Flower - CUP04-23
Page 1 of 1
Healy, Patricia
From: Trevino, Jay
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Healy, Patricia
Cc: Barela, Rosa
Subject: FW: 2810 3/4 South Flower - CUP04-23
Pat - Here's the continuance request.
From: Gribben, Denise [mailto:denise.gribben@spectrasite.com)
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:11 AM
To: 'mellenbecker@cLsanta-ana.ca.us'
Cc: Barnard, Sheila; Levering, Brooke
Subject: 28103/4 South Flower - CUP04-23
Hi Marvin,
We are requesting a continuance from the May 16th City Council hearing regarding CUP 04-23 due to
engineering reevaluation. We are requesting to be placed on the agenda for June 20th.
Denise Gribben
SpectraSite Communications
Real Estate Manager - West Region
2201 Dupont, Suite 340
Irvine, CA 92612
949-442-6409 Office
949-690-6830 Cell
949-474-7260 Fax
75A-1
5/12/2005
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~\
~~,~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MAY 16, 2005
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2004-23 TO ALLOW A 60-
FOOT HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT 2810~ SOUTH FLOWER
STREET - SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS, APPLICANT
i' 7
~ M,&aa~
CI 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
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 as
conditioned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On March 28, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-23 as conditioned by a vote of 5:0 (Leo and Lutz absent)
to allow a 60-foot high wireless communications facility in the Open
Space (0) zoning district at 2810~ South Flower Street. The Planning
Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval
outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) .
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
~/7~
Ste hen G. H lng
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
ME:rb
me\reports\cup04-23.051605.cc
75A-1
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
(~~
'II.~ ill
/~tat'~
)., ~auca IOn 1St')
~...
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
MARCH 28, 2005
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2004-23 TO ALLOW A 60-FOOT HIGH
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT
2810X SOUTH FLOWER STREET
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
D Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Marvin Ellenbecker
~1wc ~~
Executive Dir r
~Planning Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 as
conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
SpectraSite Communications, Inc., representing Verizon Wireless, is
requesting approval of a conditional use permit to continue operation of
an existing 60-foot tall monopalm cellular facility at Saddleback High
School, 2810% South Flower Street. In addition, The Alaris Group LLC,
representing AT&T Wireless, is requesting approval to co-locate on the
same facility.
Property Description
The property is located within the Open Space (0) zoning district and has
a General Plan land use designation of Institutional (INS) (Exhibit 1).
The property is bounded by residential uses to the north, south and west
and industrial uses to the east (Exhibit 2). The subj ect property is
approximately 36.41 acres in size, rectangular in shape and improved with
school buildings and athletic fields. There is an existing 60-foot tall
wireless facility at this site that was approved under Conditional Use
Permit No. 99-10.
EXHIBIT A
75A-2
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
March 28, 2005
Page 2
Project Description
On July 19, 1999, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit
No. 99-10 to allow a 60-foot high cellular monopalm at this location
with a condition that the conditional use permit would expire in five
years (July 19, 2004). SpectraSite Communications, Inc. is proposing to
continue the operation of the cellular communications tower for Verizon
Wireless. In addition, The Alaris Group, LLC, representing AT&T
Wireless, is proposing to co-locate on the existing cellular facility.
SpectraSite Communications, Inc. leases 1,500 square feet of ground
space from the Santa Ana Unified School District for the cellular tower.
AT&T Wireless proposes to lease an additional 250 square feet of open
space to construct their equipment cabinets. Santa Ana Unified School
District is in agreement with the wireless facility use and its location
(Exhibi t 3). AT&T Wireless would add three sectors containing two
antennas each to the existing 60-foot cellular facility as part of the
co-location. The antennas will be camouflaged to resemble a Mexican Fan
Palm Tree with a faux "petticoat" or skirt resembling dead palm fronds.
The monopalm is located south and west of existing school buildings,
south of the school athletic fields, and north of the existing Santa Ana
Bike Trail and Southern Pacific Railroad spur. The monopalm is located
in an existing grove of four trees consisting of two Canary Island Pines
and two Mexican Fan Palms (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6) .
Analysis of the Issues
In July 1988, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted an
ordinance that regulated wireless communication facilities throughout the
City. Major wireless facilities are required to have a stealth design and
be located on a building or in an area that provides the greatest amount
of visual screening. These antennas also require the approval of a
conditional use permit. The proposed monopalm will be located behind the
building complex that fronts on Flower Street. In addition, the grove of
existing trees will help screen the wireless facility.
The applicants have explored alternatives to the monopalm structure, such
as locating the cellular facility on the top of an existing building in
the area. Structures in the area, however, are not tall enough to meet
the coverage needs. The existing 60-foot tall facility is needed in order
to improve cellular coverage, increase call capacity and quality. This
facility will provide a benefit to Santa Ana residents, businesses and
motorists who subscribe to Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless services by
closing service gaps in the area and providing additional calling
75A-3
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
March 28, 2005
Page 3
capacity. Equipment for the monopalm will be located inside cabinets
within the leased area and will be screened behind a seven-foot wrought
iron fence covered with vines. All additional wiring and conduit will be
underground or hidden in the interior of the trunk of the existing
monopalm. The monopalm complies with the City's Wireless Communications
Facility Ordinance and will provide needed service to the south-central
and southeast sections of the city.
Based upon the above analysis and findings, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 as
conditioned (Exhibits 7 and 8) .
CEQA Compliance
This project was reviewed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further
review pursuant to Section 15303. This Class 3 exemption allows for the
construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities
and structures. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-161
will be filed for this project.
~~~
Marvin Ellenbecker
Landscape Development Associate
---t.A
Vince Fregoso,
Senior Planner
ME:JM
me\reports\cup04-23.032805.pc
75A-4
I' ~ l:Jl:Jl:Jl:J :---.t..J 1
SP R R1 R1 R1 R1
I Rl -1
WARNER AV.
0 C1 ~ [
R1
C2 M1 M1 C2 [
~386_4J' Rl R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 Rl M1 M1 [
Rl R1 1 R2-PRD ~
/-, in
~ 1....-" M1
. " II
" II
,'-,,/ M1 ~
,/
8 ~
~
C2
M1 M1 M1
~ R1 oj
0 ~ C2 R1 R1 R1 R1
~ R3 R3 R3 R3 Rl
C4 ~
~
SEGERSTROM AV
R1 ~
~
C4
~f~~i
Al
-B
C-SM
Cl
Cl-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
~
C1
I-'
CJl
Z
;;'
::;
C4
R4
Rl
"
II
II
: I
(:==::~==:;
o
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
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
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
R4
RE
SO
SP
A
CUP 04-23
SPECTRA SITE MONOPALM FOR VERIZON AND AT&T
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
2810 3/4 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
A
rPf'
l' = 1000 FEET
- = 500 FEET
P LAN N
N G
AGE N C Y
AND BUILD
EXHIBIT 1
75A-5
N G
>- >- ~
::! ::! c:i ....
j:: (j s
i1 t)
~ i
9 l<:
.... VJ (j
Vi ex: ~ 0
VJ
AVENUE OYER
I-
w
w
a:
I- Q
en '"
~
t)
"(
.,: ll:
0
f-.
t) VJ
c:i
(j
l<:
(j
o
A
CUP 04-23
SPECTRA SITE MONOPALM FOR VERIZON AND AT&T
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
28103/4 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
A
&V'
P LAN N
N G
AND
B U
L D
N G
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
75A-6
SaJ.lta Ana Unified S,,-hool District
Donald L. Trigg
Associate Superintendent,
Business Senlices
Al Mijares, Ph.D., Superintendent
January 11, 2005
Santa Ana Planning Department
20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Street Annex
Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322
RE: Site NameINumber: CA-OI04, Art Center
Site Address: 2802 S. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA
Purpose: Letter for Planning Department
Please be informed, that on the above referenced site, Santa Ana Unified School District
does not oppose the collocation of AT & T on the monopalm at Saddleback High School.
Santa Ana Unified School District does not oppose the renewal of the CUP for the
monopalm at Saddleback High School.
If you need any other information, please do not hesitate to call me at 714 558-5826.
Sincerely,
.~'-- U~i
Donald L. Trigg
Associate Superintendent, Business Services
DL T:bl
xc: Sheila Barnard
1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322, (714) 558-5501
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Audrey Yamagata-Noji, Ph.D., President. Rob Richardson, Vice President
Sal Tinajero, Clerk. Rosemarie Avila, Member · John Palacio, Member
7rg1(r:rf 3
A
Existing monopalm with
Verizon antennas
BEFORE
Existing Verizon antennas to
remain and will be screened
by new faux fronds
New skirt of faux dead fronds to
screen AT&T antennas mou~'
o e./ .F
.,../,r'
AFTER
CUP 04-23
SPECTRA SITE MONOPALM FOR VERIZON AND AT&T
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
2810 3/4 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
A
e9V'
PLANNING
AND
BUILDING
AGE N C Y
CUP 04-23
7~~~T4
o
~
i
r
z
o
~
>-'=
"'~
g~
z ~ ~u
" ,",0 /~
'i ~~
i< ~ g l~
w ~
j[ o~
"'0
~ ~5 "' :s~
~~
_0 00
~ 5a ~~
~~ ~i
~ ~~
- w
8 1[i5
~~
"z
~
tf~
~~
~o
~~ ~
lD~ .c:
gS i~
o~
:g~
~~ ~
~
~
~w
~~
~g
uji
. w
~~
~~
~~
g~ ~
~-~
~
--~
~; I
,
'\
,
~
C\l
~
~
. ~ ~
~~ ~8
~::l ~~
~ ~~~:
. 1S ~3M9.l~_.:...... ~~ fiJe
~-"rk'--;~l-;;-;;;-L~}~~_~"~ ~~
&~"-~n::~"::::~,\\. ~~
~ /. /.;/'" \,~
~Oi .r/::<:::/ .~ \:\. \
'it / ~ "
' \\ .. /' A' ,,(\\
\~, \ ~ \.J ~~.
-r · )' \:d.
f':~"'-
~~\~~~
01 ~ g~
0'" ~ 8
....II .. I S ~
ai w~.
Ii ~~'o 0 _/-
. ..... ,. '.Q
I ~"\ .,~'
i ~\<~':\. ~ /is<4>'-
~\ ./i<-~
~ 'Y'-
U'. .-.10
\ ~;;j
'or
~'.
~
'"
::\"
~~
~!
~~
bt:
-51
t~
ON
~~
~I
~~
~
~
0:
..
~
~
/~
~
...
A.
W
5i
CUP 04-23
J~95
~ ..
II
I
..
~; I
~; .l:
i 1
~ :;;
~
@
, , ':I
''''~5~
, , ~ ,
. I
i
i ~ ~
! ~ ~
2 ~
~
I ,; i
~
I , , , ~ ~
Vl
I-~
~>
~ ffi.~
I- Vl~.
__ Vl<~
illl
<(
ffi 8~
;:tD~7
9 en tt: b
~ S ~~
021 M..JOl
~ ~ ~tj
101 Z 'i
~ cC ""-c
..... ~ rij!
ln ~ ~
3: N
.~ !
.~~
(,)~
Ol?
~ti
~ ~
!i~ bl
ri iil
~il i'l
~ ~
i.i
5 j 1.1
-G. 'id 1 J~
t i ~~
ILl iJ J.
i < ~ . fJl
r.n ~ ~ Ig
~ ~ q ii
c
A.
...
SONmtJ "'VdONO" (3) '0'1 .0-.Q9 ~; " ~
z
l'f1"'dONO~ (3) '0'1 ,,0 .0' ~ ~ 5~
" i
JNn~31N3J lINNJINY :m08~vd NOZI~3" (3) _D-.Z~ g~ ~ ~~
3Nll~lN]J '9NN31N'W SMV .0 .<> w~ ~2 ~!f
~~ ~~ z e~
t- c
!::!15 t- .
~ w" "
g~ ~z u ~~
e "' " ~~ o.!j ~ ~ ~ z
~o ~ ~z W
0. W ~ 0",
" r!l:~'--T'--~ o.U ~u 0. ~~
_ :r:I:rr::rrr-..:~~ _.1..l~_........t ^ _ ~~ 1O~ ~ ~
~ 2 w
z ;;;::? ~ z z
e~ " ~
"'.: ~ "
~~ w ~
@iJ; ~ ~~ ~ ~ > ;..
=>
:;?" OZ
~ 0.0. ~ g:~
g~ 2~ ~ .,;~
il' ~il'
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ "
z
g~ !:i~ 2 ~2 ~ o.w
z ~z ;~
r=~ "
~~ ~ ~i 9 ~ z ~~
ill ~ j
il' ~~ w ~!
U
~ w z ~~
... ~ 'GEl ~ z ~'"
~ 5t;;
;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~:::
I => z ~~
" g~
w ~ ~ ~~
;.. ~~ ~~
w ~
3Nn~31N]J VNNllN't SNl'f' .0 ,1iK
~
UI
c
i
UI
C')
3NI1~31N3:J 't'NN]lNY SMY .0- of.
3Nllolil!N3J VNN3J.NV OIlOSYWd NOZI~]^ (J) .0- ,C:'i
nlVdONOl'l (]) '0'1 .0 ,09
SONmlJ rflVdONO" (3) '0"1.0-,99
~!LoJ~
~S~~
5~~~
~~t=-=...
1.o.I<I(~w
~~~~
U
Z
~ o.w
z E~
=>
~ ~~
~!f
z S~
0
~
.. ~~
w ~~
88
~ ~d
15 ~~
~3 U
~il' i [
wo
~ ~ ~z ~
~ il' o.!j ~ ~ ~ 0.
~ lG . '" ~
0 :~~ 0.
U ~ lOi ~ ~
=> z ~;f~ w
8'g ~ z
~ " ~ w
~ 8~5 ,,~
il' ~ ~~ ~~! ~ ~ ~ ,~
=> ~o
OZ z
... ~ o.~ g:~~ ~ ~ gg
0.0.
SCINO~U ~YdONO" (3) '0'1 ..0-.99
Kl'fdONOn (3) '0'1 ,,0 ,09
]Nn~31N3J 't'NN31N't' :moewYd NOZI~~ (3) ,,0 ,ZS
3N11YJlNJ:) 't'NN3J.NV SlAY.O ,n
]Nlll:l3lN]O VNN31NV SM.tJ ~O ,tit
gi ~ ~ ~ UO~ wo w g~
z I I ~~~ uz 0. "'fj
fj ~~ =>
~ ~~
~~ ~"o ~ ~ g
~ o.z ~i'l
!j 0 ~ 0
U 2 0..0 0. 0. ~~
i z z ~~~ ~z
" " 2 Z ~ ~
,. ~~ ~~~ ~ z~
~ o.~ ~ ;..~
ill ~~ ~ 0 ~
:;: ~ ~ => w
... w €~ ~
~~ ~
~
~
g
3Nnl:l]lN3J VNN]lNV S"'.. ~O- ,ft>
]Ntl~lN]J YNN3J.NV JIl08"~d NOZll:I]^ (]) .0 ,Zli
"1't'dONO" (]) '0"1 ~O- ,09
SONOl:l.:l "lVdONO" (3) '0"1 ~O ,99
CUP 04-23
7!;A1IJf(J
C'\I
. ~
~;
.
iii
. .
! ~
i i
.Ie
I
g 'f
~ Ii;
~
e
, , I ~
n~
~ ~
.
! I
i I
, ~
} i
Vl
1-t3
~~
I- W~
-- ~~.
t; ..... ~ I~
~ .I~~
i <(
II:
L&l I:i:!l
~ a:l ~7
...J en a:: r--
LI.. S ~R
01 C"') 9 ~
II: ~:11
L&l
> :i! . ~
C en :,.<
~ ...J ~~
:i:
.~ ~
~~~~
~ 8,2
CJ':J~
g
~~ ~ i.!
1"' :lj
;i! l'i
,
!.~
~ I
~ I f
f.
'Il ll~
p f.
~ JiI
-< ! . ,.
rJ) ~ J Jg
~ w.
III!!:< 11
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
March 28, 2005
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
neighborhood or
will
the
The proposed 60-foot tall cellular monopole will provide a
service to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists who
subscribe to Verizon and AT&T wireless services by reducing the
gaps in digital cellular service and providing additional
calling capacity for its users, especially for those users
traveling within the south-central and southeast areas of Santa
Ana.
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?
Federal law exempts local jurisdictions from regulating health
related issues as these issues are covered under Federal laws.
However, the proposed facility will be in compliance with both
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations.
C. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area?
The existing monopalm, in conjunction with the grove of trees,
will be compatible with the surrounding area and will not
adversely affect the economic viability in the area as the
monopalm has a design that will give it the look of a palm
tree, with landscaping a maj or tool used in maintaining and
increasing the economic stability of project sites.
D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
The cellular
regulations
Santa Ana
Colocation
facility has been designed to comply with the
and conditions identified in Chapter 41 of the
Municipal Code for a major wireless facility.
of carriers is strongly encouraged when possible.
CUP 04-23
''!r~L"'171
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
March 28, 2005
Page 2 of 2
E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The monopole, as designed, will not adversely affect the
General Plan, as cellular facilities, designed to be compatible
with the surrounding environment, are consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Institutional (INS) General Plan
designation.
75A-12
MARCH 28, 2005
PAGE 1 OF 3
Conditions for Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 is approved subject to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California
Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code
applicable regulations.
compliance, to
all applicable
Administrative
and all other
The applicants must comply in full with each and every condition listed
below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use
permit.
The applicants 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 applicants must comply with all conditions and requirements
of the Development Review Committee for the development project
(DP No. 04-055).
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will
determine if administrative relief is available or the
conditional use permit must be amended.
3. The current grove of Canary Island Pines and Mexican Fan Palms
and vines around the equipment area shall be maintained in good
order over the life of the conditional use permit. In
addition, new vines will be added to the leased equipment area
and be maintained by AT&T.
4. The permit applicants recognize that the frequencies used by
the cellular facility located at 2810% South Flower Street are
extremely close to the frequencies used by the City of Santa
Ana for Public Safety. This proximity will require
extraordinary "comprehensive advanced planning and frequency
coordinationn engineering measures to prevent interference,
especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary
hardware. This is encouraged in the "Best Practices Guiden
published by the Association of Public-Safety Communications
7~i~1~
MARCH 28, 2005
PAGE20F3
Officials- International, Incorporated (APCO), and as endorsed
by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Prior to the
issuance of any permits to install the facility, (Permit
Applicant) shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of
frequencies and equipment with the Communications Division of
the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department to minimize, to
the greatest extent possible, any interference with the Public
Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System
(CCCS) . Similar consideration shall be given to any other
existing or proposed wireless communications facility that may
be located on the subject property.
5 .
At all times,
of Santa Ana
City's 800 MHz
the permit applicant shall not
from having adequate spectrum
radio frequency.
prevent the City
capaci ty on the
6. Before activating its facility, the permit applicants will
submit to a post-installation test to confirm that "advanced
planning and frequency coordination" of the facility was
successful in not interfering with the City of Santa Ana
Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by
the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-
Coroner Department or a Division-approved contractor at the
expense of the Applicant. This post-installation testing
process shall be repeated for every proposed frequency
addition and/or change to confirm the intent of the "frequency
planning" process has been met.
7.
The permit applicants shall provide a 24-hour
which interference problems may be reported.
will also apply to all existing facilities
Santa Ana.
phone number to
This condition
in the City of
8. The permit applicants will provide a "single point of contact"
in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure
continui ty on all interference issues. The name, telephone
number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be
provided to City's designated representative upon activation
of the facility.
9. The permit applicants shall insure that lessee or other
user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this
permit, and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee
or other users under the control of permit applicant to
comply.
75A-14
MARCH 28, 2005
PAGE30F3
10. The permit applicants shall provide a coverage and cell site
location map for each existing and proposed facility in Santa
Ana.
11.
The proposed
engineered to
providers.
wireless communication
allow the co-location
structure
of other
must be
service
12. Locate all equipment and related appurtenances (appleton plug
and electric meter) on the inside of the equipment enclosure
or inside the building.
13. This conditional use permit shall expire five years from the
date of approval by the City Council.
75A-15
KO - 4/4/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2004-23 TO ALLOW A 60-FOOT TALL
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2810 % SOUTH FLOWER
STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 came before the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on
March 28, 2005.
B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 has been filed with the City of Santa
Ana seeking to allow a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility for
the property located at 2810 % South Flower Street. The facility will be
co-locatable.
C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-198.10, a Conditional
Use Permit is required for major wireless facilities.
D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning
Commission to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain
findings.
1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community?
The proposed 60-foot tall cellular monopole will provide a
service to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists
who subscribe to Verizon and AT&T wireless services by
reducing the gaps in digital cellular service and providing
additional calling capacity for its users, especially for those
users traveling within the south-central and southeast areas of
Santa Ana.
75A-16
Resolution No. 2005-01
Page 1 of 3
2. 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?
Federal law exempts local jurisdictions from regulating
health related issues as these issues are covered under
Federal laws. However, the proposed facility will be in
compliance with both the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) safety regulations.
3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area?
The existing monopalm, in conjunction with the grove of
trees, will be compatible with the surrounding area and will
not adversely affect the economic viability in the area as the
monopalm has a design that will give it the look of a palm
tree, with landscaping a major tool used in maintaining and
increasing the economic stability of project sites.
4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
The cellular facility has been designed to comply with the
regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code for a major wireless facility.
Colocation of carriers is strongly encouraged when possible.
5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The monopole, as designed, will not adversely affect the
General Plan, as cellular facilities, designed to be compatible
with the surrounding environment, are consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Institutional (INS) General Plan
designation.
E. This project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant
to Section 15303. This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities and structures.
Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-161 will be filed
for this project.
Section 2. The Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached
75A-17
Resolution No. 2005-01
Page 2 of 3
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 28, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public
testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 28th day of March , 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Cribb. De La Torre, Gartner. Mondo. Nalle (5)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Leo, Lutz (2)
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. 2005-01 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on March 28, 2005.
Date:
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2005-01
Page 3 of 3
75A-18
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 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 applicants must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicants 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 applicants must comply with all conditions and requirements of the
Development Review Committee for the development project (DP No. 04-
055).
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. The current grove of Canary Island Pines and Mexican Fan Palms and
vines around the equipment area shall be maintained in good order over the
life of the conditional use permit. In addition, new vines will be added to the
leased equipment area and be maintained by AT&T.
4. The permit applicants recognize that the frequencies used by the cellular
facility located at 2810% South Flower Street are extremely close to the
frequencies used by the City of Santa Ana for Public Safety. This
proximity will require extraordinary "comprehensive advanced planning
and frequency coordination" engineering measures to prevent
interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary
hardware. This is encouraged in the "Best Practices Guide" published by
the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Incorporated (APCO), and as endorsed by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Prior to the issuance of any permits to install the
facility, (Permit Applicant) shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of
frequencies and equipment with the Communications Division of the
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department to minimize, to the greatest
extent possible, any interference with the Public Safety 800 MHz
Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). Similar
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
75A-19
consideration shall be given to any other existing or proposed wireless
communications facility that may be located on the subject property.
5. At all times, the permit applicant shall not prevent the City of Santa Ana
from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio
frequency.
6. Before activating its facility, the permit applicants will submit to a post-
installation test to confirm that "advanced planning and frequency
coordination" of the facility was successful in not interfering with the City of
Santa Ana Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by
the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner
Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of the
Applicant. This post-installation testing process shall be repeated for
every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of
the "frequency planning" process has been met.
7. The permit applicants shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which
interference problems may be reported. This condition will also apply to
all existing facilities in the City of Santa Ana.
8. The permit applicants will provide a "single point of contact" in its
Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all
interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail
address of that person shall be provided to City's designated
representative upon activation of the facility.
9. The permit applicants shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply
with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for
the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of permit
applicant to comply.
10. The permit applicants shall provide a coverage and cell site location map
for each existing and proposed facility in Santa Ana.
11. The proposed wireless communication structure must be engineered to
allow the co-location of other service providers.
12. Locate all equipment and related appurtenances (appleton plug and
electric meter) on the inside of the equipment enclosure or inside the
building.
13. This conditional use permit shall expire five years from the date of
approval by the City Council.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2
75A-20
bk-5/10/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-049
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2004-23 TO ALLOW A 60-FOOT TALL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2810 % SOUTH FLOWER 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. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 came before the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed, de novo public hearing on May 16,
2005.
B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 has been filed with the City of Santa
Ana seeking to allow a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility for
the property located at 2810 % South Flower Street. The facility will be
co-locatable.
C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-198.10, a Conditional
Use Permit is required for major wireless facilities.
D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to
grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings.
1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community?
The proposed 60-foot tall cellular monopole will provide a
service to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists
who subscribe to Verizon and AT&T wireless services by
reducing the gaps in digital cellular service and providing
additional calling capacity for its users, especially for those
users traveling within the south-central and southeast areas of
Santa Ana.
2. 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?
75A-21
Resolution No. 2005-049
Page 1 of 3
Federal law exempts local jurisdictions from regulating
health related issues as these issues are covered under
Federal laws. However, the proposed facility will be in
compliance with both the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) safety regulations.
3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area?
The existing monopalm, in conjunction with the grove of
trees, will be compatible with the surrounding area and will
not adversely affect the economic viability in the area as the
monopalm has a design that will give it the look of a palm
tree, with landscaping a major tool used in maintaining and
increasing the economic stability of project sites.
4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
The cellular facility has been designed to comply with the
regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code for a major wireless facility.
Colocation of carriers is strongly encouraged when possible.
5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The monopole, as designed, will not adversely affect the
General Plan, as cellular facilities, designed to be compatible
with the surrounding environment, are consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Institutional (INS) General Plan
designation.
E. This project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant
to Section 15303. This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities and structures.
Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-161 will be filed
for this project.
Section 2. The City Council after conducting the public hearing hereby approves
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 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 Council
Action dated May 16, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all
of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
75A-22
Resolution No. 2005-049
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
resolution, including but not limited to each and every condition attached hereto, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have
adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
thereof, including the conditions hereto, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, portions or conditions be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Benjamin Kaufman
Chief Assistant City Attorney
75A-23
Resolution No. 2005-049
Page 3 of 3
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-XXX 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
75A-24
Resolution No. 2005-049
Page 4 of 3
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-23 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 applicants must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicants 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 applicants must comply with all conditions and requirements of the
Development Review Committee for the development project (DP No. 04-
055).
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. The current grove of Canary Island Pines and Mexican Fan Palms and
vines around the equipment area shall be maintained in good order over the
life of the conditional use permit. In addition, new vines will be added to the
leased equipment area and be maintained by AT&T.
4. The permit applicants recognize that the frequencies used by the cellular
facility located at 2810% South Flower Street are extremely close to the
frequencies used by the City of Santa Ana for Public Safety. This
proximity will require extraordinary "comprehensive advanced planning
and frequency coordination" engineering measures to prevent
interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary
hardware. This is encouraged in the "Best Practices Guide" published by
the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Incorporated (APCO), and as endorsed by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Prior to the issuance of any permits to install the
facility, (Permit Applicant) shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of
frequencies and equipment with the Communications Division of the
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department to minimize, to the greatest
extent possible, any interference with the Public Safety 800 MHz
Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). Similar
EXHIBIT "A"
PfgA~fi5
consideration shall be given to any other existing or proposed wireless
communications facility that may be located on the subject property.
5. At all times, the permit applicant shall not prevent the City of Santa Ana
from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio
frequency.
6. Before activating its facility, the permit applicants will submit to a post-
installation test to confirm that "advanced planning and frequency
coordination" of the facility was successful in not interfering with the City of
Santa Ana Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by
the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner
Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of the
Applicant. This post-installation testing process shall be repeated for
every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of
the "frequency planning" process has been met.
7. The permit applicants shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which
interference problems may be reported. This condition will also apply to
all existing facilities in the City of Santa Ana.
8. The permit applicants will provide a "single point of contact" in its
Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all
interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail
address of that person shall be provided to City's designated
representative upon activation of the facility.
9. The permit applicants shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply
with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for
the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of permit
applicant to comply.
10. The permit applicants shall provide a coverage and cell site location map
for each existing and proposed facility in Santa Ana.
11. The proposed wireless communication structure must be engineered to
allow the co-location of other service providers.
12. Locate all equipment and related appurtenances (appleton plug and
electric meter) on the inside of the equipment enclosure or inside the
building.
13. This conditional use permit shall expire five years from the date of
approval by the City Council.
EXHIBIT "A"
P~2of2
{ oA-26