The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75B - 2701 N GRAND AVE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: NOVEMBER 7, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2005-05 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AT 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE - SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES, ",",CANT a~ )A ~4 .{;2 CITY MANAGER APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Ordinance on 151 Reading o Ordinance on 2nd Reading o Implementing Resolution o Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-262. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2005-05. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On October 10, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-262; and adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2005-05 by a vote of 6:0 (Lutz absent) to change the zoning designation from Single-Family Residence (R1) to Arterial Commercial (C5) in order to allow the construction of a retail building with a Starbucks at 2701 North Grand Avenue. The Planning Commission made no changes to the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~J~ Trevino cutlve Dlrector Planning & Building Agency AN:rb an\plancomm\aa05-05.cc 758-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action rm, ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES FOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2005-05 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AT 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Set Public Hearing For DENIED o Applicant's Request o Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Ann Hsin-An Ni REj2:::~::~I:~ ~~ H=~~ Plannin Man ger Recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-262. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2005-05. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Silvercreek Properties is requesting approval to amend the zoning classification of a site from Single-Family Residence (R1) to Arterial Commercial (C5) in order to allow the construction of a retail building with a Starbucks at 2701 North Grand Avenue. Property Description The subject site has a current zoning designation of Single-Family Residence (R1) with a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) that allows a floor area ratio up to 0.5. This site is surrounded by commercial and retail uses to the north, east and west and a combination of commercial and multi-family residential to the south (Exhibit 1). The property is approximately 0.41 acres in area, irregular in shape and currently vacant. The property is located on the northeast corner of Grand and Fairhaven Avenues. Both streets are designated as arterial streets in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. There are three existing retail buildings to the north and east that have reciprocal driveway easements with the subject site (Exhibit 2). rsel1Z' Amendment Application No. 2005-05 October 10, 2005 Page 2 Project Description The project involves the construction of a new 2,700 square foot building, including a 1,700 square foot Starbucks and a 1,000 square foot space for a future retail tenant. Additionally, a 416 square foot outdoor seating area is proposed. Operating hours will be from 6: 00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily (Exhibit 3). The design of the project demonstrates a high quality appearance appropriate for the use and satisfies the design standards set forth in the Urban Design Element. The building's architecture will be highlighted by a three-color exterior palette along with a low-rising stone veneer. A horizontal wood facia is proposed to mark the entry with custom light poles serving as support columns to the canvas awnings (Exhibits 4 through 6) . Access to the proj ect will be provided from both Grand and Fairhaven Avenues. A total of 22 parking spaces are required and will be provided to satisfy the minimum requirement. Analysis of the Issues The current zoning classification for the subj ect property is Family Residence (R1). A zone change to Arterial Commercial required to facilitate the applicant's request. The proposed Commercial zoning district will be consistent with the Commercial General Plan land use designation (Exhibit 7). Single- (C5) is Arterial General In 1965, a zone change was approved (AA No. 556) to change the zoning designation of the northeast corner of Grand and Fairhaven Avenues from Agriculture (A1) to Arterial Commercial, except for the subject parcel. This parcel remained R1 as the Planning Division was in the process of reviewing a service station proposal. Subsequently, a variance (VA No. 66-20) was approved to allow the construction and operation of a gasoline service station in the R1 zoning district. The property has been vacant since 1991 when the gasoline service station was demolished. The adjacent retail center was developed in 1976. The proposed Starbucks will provide sit-down services to its patrons. The proj ect has been designed to meet the City's development standards for eating establishment and retail uses. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation has been provided in a safe and usable manner throughout the site. A combination of berms and hedges will be provided in the front 758-3 Amendment Application No. 2005-05 October 10, 2005 Page 3 yard setback area and reduce glare. designed to avoid along both street frontages The vehicular circulation conflicts on-and off-site. to screen the parking area system for the project is The proposed retail building will provide a service to the existing commercial and residential buildings in the vicinity. The proposed zone change is necessary in order to accommodate the applicant's request as well as make the site consistent with the City's general plan and the land use pattern of this area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. One of the goals of the Land Use Element is to preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The project has been designed to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The facility will contribute to the general well being of the community by providing food and beverage service to residents and visitors as well as enhancing the economic stability of the area by converting a vacant site into a vital, active commercial development. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared for this project. A geotechnical report that addresses seismic constraints, liquefaction potential, soil conditions, proj ect building load requirements and identifies design recommendations to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project is required to be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits. In summary, the proposed project complies with the provisions in the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district and Land Use the General Plan. Approval of Amendment Application No. recommended. set forth Element of 2005-05 is CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-262 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 8). ~ ~Z' Ami Hsin-An Ni Associate Planner A ~ Vince Fregos , Senior Planne AN:JM an\plancomm\aa05-05.pc 758-4 JI IlL TO,""UCOUNTRYAO , ! C i I Y , f R4 C5 R4 . , Rl I Al . , Al I Rl Rl Rl Rl Rl , Rl Rl Rl Rl Rl Rl t~ i ~~ R2 "'.<+1.1 R2 ~ 1 o R2 '.rn~:': .~~ : 5o-Al ~ -7200 " Or" n g " L fI'EE'llP.'f '2.'2. 0 .,i~~ 0 6Il-Rl_noa to 6O-Rlt;; '" 50-fll ~,,"oo' oo,~~ -mo ~ -7200 ''''' ~ , 6o-A1-7200 to Rl.7200 60.Rl.7200 i ! 50-Al-7200 Rl , ------' l-----J l'~i------1~li II II 1111 IIII 1111 III, \\ II l~J(_ Y...;I I/-I/----...-_---~~...,~/? '1 II A1 1\ 11 1111 1111 1111 rill 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 ~~~--=-=-=-=.-=.=~~_':. 50-Al-7200 , Rl Rl RI ~' -,ol Rl RI Rl , IRl 8. SANfAC........... -Al "....----..' R2. o ~ 11., 11 ~ R1 ;;~~- Rl II Rl ~ Rl I R1 Rl I ~ Al 0 ~ Rl Rl Rl Al Rl i----_,'-----I ^' r. r. , , 41 50.Rl-7200 A 1" = 1000 FEET P LAN 41 -B C-SM C1 Gl-MD C2 C3 C3-4 C' CS Rl Rl Rl GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC M1 M2 Me o P PCO PRO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 R2 R3 R' RE SO SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIF!C PLAN AA 05-5 STARBUCKS/SILVER CREEK PROPERTIES 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE N N G A N o B U L 0 EXHIBIT 1 758-5 A #{' - = 500 FEET N G A G E N c y ~ ~ ~ ~ " uJ ~ :;) '" :z: " uJ " ~ " ~ 0 " ~ '" 0 " 0 ~ " on 0 MULTI FAMILY PROJECT RESIDENTIAL " SITE ~ ~ P LAN N FAIRHAVEN AVENUE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~ ~ " ~ '" " " o " MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ~ O:t ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AA 05-5 STARBUCKS/SILVER CREEK PROPERTIES 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE N G AND B U L D N G AGE N C Y EXHIBIT 2 758-6 A PI' CZj _ I ~l~ ~ "dNVVlNVS '"3^VlJNVI:H) oN ~OL(: ! .5~i~ =~ II," . dn ~"""""'d 119-~:)JI1IAI1S UI ~"!! . I · Ili'!l' i. ,I' I,i if I , . III1 I Illil 1111 II I! iillll1111lill I: ;! I Illh 1m t : Ii =11 :,! lilli": 1M . I Ii Uiillllli I illi Ildll illllll II !1m ~ ~ nil! ililil!ill illl n iillllMI Ii 111ill;, . Z I', .1"11"1"1 '11'11 j' it! I' ,Ii ~ E III illl iilil ij1lii liiill i !,lul,! ,1m i 111,ill,l,i, ~ nl II .1:111I1 'II' h t 11:1 n'l ,,~ _ ...... 4 .. _.. .. ... .... IIIII I,.il '1 jl 111111 !IIIIIII ii ',I! II!il ~'Ilil II: l!l ,Ii IIII '!! "j '11111 IIIII Iii I' : 1"'111 I'll! ill -Ill'! 1111 II', ~ Illiil' 111!1 I.!. III ~ .,'IIIIII! 11,I',I!l 'l'lll,lh .2 'I. 11 I ! I'll; :g Ii hli! lilill,lllllll 0. " ~ " o .Z ~ " "" <1) " ..c: ~ .s .,,; <1) .,,; . .;;: o ... "" <1) .L:> en ~ ... <1) ~ " . " P- " ~ ~ ~ o u . " l:: <1) ~ ~ ... <1) ~ <1) . S " '6 ..c: u .s " , -T N , ~ i'l I -T <:> .~ ~ , ;; . , " . " . ii: 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~m ~ I Lu ....... 8>-<1: Cl ~ I ~~~~Q;!;1<;~ I o tj..... ffi ~ '" @o::~~~i I _______________J . ...." :J.I\'l~l!1,j13J uJ"' I I o~ ~~ 'I ' . ' " <u ill ~ '/, , ]1 I! , " h NVld 3J.lS Q3S0dOHd I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I. j' o . < ....... < ~e I ,,"Z I wi I :E~ I ~51I~ I O~ ,I I mil' I Ie I I I i i : i · I II ii' 1.1 \"'-""'-"': 'II i1' I , I ~,t ~~ I '" I I ' ::. I '" M- I - :r: I 1:- I "Cl: I ; '" : I [ u.. I I: I ,r _ I ,f I 1,- I~ \ "z) i " , II II tt:: t 1'_ ;~ ~Ii~'l '" ~_ j ~~ ~&.~ - :! '- " ~... Ii: - :..,' ~_'F.>'~"""l'lIO) ~ ]i!li __u I ~i t .. .. I~ -' z ~ I ~ ~ 1 hi i ~i I !"....;~r "-0 -~~- -,.... I ---"~.{ ~ Q;. ! ~_.S,~ SdiIIo>5t ,}/ [ Cll Ie I J' ",,~. 1 :IE I II!: -i ,,_1;:)-- ll'f'lll~ I ,., ! I': , ~.... j '2 I .1 ~J,'" I ; I! ._,J ;r.- ~." ll_.~ - "~. u _;r. -, '" JlIli' ~ ~ "".. I ,,- :;: ~_-'O~;' ~ 1- ~;- ."" - I -- ~-=-~~-=-_-= _ - - I!i _- ---- I " -- - Uu ----u-_---~~:':"oo-=--=-~~~~-=----=-12;u- _J, _--~~~~~I/.~~~-=-='L--- - - ~ Ii : I i , I 1iJA.J'5-5 I EXHIBIT 3 . J ;1' 1'1 III Ii:'. Ii ,h"l!!li II II" III. IIIII! Iii" jl .Ul Ii;., I jll:1i lllh i 111111,.1" Ilil! I II t... t il !I,,! '!lii ~,I'll ; " i "II 'l'j -, 1'''1 III I,! Ii II! ill II Il'I,I! 11,...1,111.1,1 ~.; 01" 01 .. I I i , . I : I II I !! ~I il Ii I! ':"" ,I, 11'1 Ii ;!:':I'!I! i, Ii ,!li!d!'1 I' 51 'h.h.'. II'~: ' il'lilh!!! II II! 1.11111111 un~~ ~~ 'i~' I !II II h~ !;. .mll~, I U!:Ud!Us~~I~bnin! Ii I ~ il~ I. I~ II Ii I i I' ! _IEI.s; IU.~~ ~UU ~~! ! d 2 8 l.n. .dOl u!.. U' i ~. 0. i:OLi:6 v::> 'VNVVlMfS "3^V ONVI:ID 'N ~oa ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Z!I i ::5L'I!II! "'1 'ii :~ !i. _......-'<1_:).1-115 III ;<>;"! III z Z 0: 0 0 .... ~ ~ Z W i:j Z -' -' ;;: w w :; :t: .... .... ~ Z 0: 0 0 -! ,~ ;:: z s , ~ w -' w ., II 'j4 .... I , . " Ul w := &-- " u: I I I J d . ~ Ii I ! I -] il itlH ~ ! U llil 0" D.. l Z :r z SN01.lV^313 I:IOII::l3lX3 A.I::I'WNIWI13I:1d ! i ! i ~ ; C! C') <t hi I i I I l I I!! I III ! I Il I i I ~I' I ' I Ii! I -g!;IUllddl t!q II j iii II i III! I I ; t I! I I :1' ill 1 j ~I!ll!d!ld! llllllldld I! II .~ ~000000000~000000000~ ,.. w ::! w I o VI 110. 8- I I i ~~ ! I ~ i ' I~ ~ ~i~J. "l J J. ' i ~:~ ~ Zil ! lIIC; ~~i~ ~~ -lin I ~f~~ . roa:6 '0':) 'vN\f'lfJ.N'fS '"3^\l' aNVl::l~"N loa; -A.-......-.:I,~IS 0-- G-- e- ~! 2 0-- l , . ----1"'- , ~ ~! ~ ~ ,-+ y T ...,..- #"1. ... ..... ... Z .. Z W I- ~ ....i ;;:- tu a: ~~ H ~ ..." .. 584-5 EXHIBIT 5 N\I1d 1::1001::1 JJ:I'lfNIW1l3l::1d ~~ qqqqqqq ~qq q '" '" o ::l , Ill' a:' .. ... '" ~~~~~~ ~9 ~~3E~~ 'l!:;:: .. ! , 1 l : It . , l l l 1"0 !. . ~ ('\I <( i! r-~. W~ :E~' W~ I_ O~ U)f ie ~n ' .I! ZOLC:6 VO'\I'N'9'lf.1N"'S"3^,ll'aN"'~D.N LOa j'-'jl ~'ll;ii a:::~ ~ ~lR S8l1Aado.ld lI8CJJOJO^IIS W IS";!:r III I NVld :ld'tOSON\'l A~WN.WI'3Ud q ,... ...J . I I ~ ~ ! i I ! ~ ii ~ ~~ 2 ~i ;;!~l ! In.~ Ii Ulli i I [J II ~lilg t I ~ H i :; " ~ :; G .. .. ... ... H~~HHH ~ !l .. I! :; D .. ~ 'III ~!: .. i 1: ~ ii: I- l- l) ~ I H~~, i ,~.!l~c"!i ~ idHUHI I 10QGGlGGBGl@G ~G ~ \ ~ . l 2 r , II ! I ~- Hq " . ~ i8B@)@ 2 w - ~ W J to-:i'l ~ W~ 4 ~fg W:i'l Iii1 z U~II UHf i!1 Ilil III' i.' b .11 '1!'111 II iii' I. '11!l1'I.jl 'I i'lflll hi" 11,1 li'jl I ! 1:1i'lhl i ,1,1",i lil! ! lil,!"II!!1 1,1 "',1 ',111.",'11. li i 'ii' I . ji iljl!l.llIi! I II! ill: IlIi 11l!!1 Ie [ Wle;ttl\"B:ll3I h . . ~ , ~I ;,.' ""I :t:' ,:1 :i , I -.. .. ~ .. .. !lllililji. MM',"I-I 11'11"_" ,.1"'1"1" Iliuh!lilj illl"IIU"llil Illl'lll: illl ii' . II' ! " ; i, 'iii I" I.. I-I, ,.. 'I l'li ,"1,'11 '1,'1 '1 1,11'!I'll:, "1'1.;1.111'" 11'111""'," .. rddJh IIllh , liiiill.ll,ii ! i '101 'I j I iii ilhi; I ,. :U , I. ill . .1 , '1 ; I'! II i .1 I~ I rll 1'1 Ii I....I;!! i. Ii l'IIiIl!1Ii ,I I' .,l'jllhl !!iiiiniiiiliii I , I , I i ----- ~- /-- i 1 I , I , 1 , 1 , I , . :1( unlm :Ii'" ", I !u i I m !;; ,mu~, I s Ih~U:!!umllhnln! Ii i "' ~ 51~ II i~ II hel !!I "! ddm 11Im .!bll;! II u! - -- ---- l , AA 05-5 7'88Brtl I I - t I t 22 FREEWAY -- -- SAN TA ANA - C I r y L I M ITS C5 Ul C5 J % Ul ~ C5 0 R4 C5 C5 C5 PROJECT SITE C5 Rl FAIRHAVEN AVENUE R2 R2 C1 R2 C5 R2 R4 R2 ~ R2 R4 R2 <t I(; C5 C5 A1 -B C-SM C1 C1-MD C2 C, C3-A c. cs GENERALAGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAL-MuseUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTlsr VilLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC M1 M2 MO o P PCO PRO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 R2 R' R' RE SO SP SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE MUlTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN AA 05-5 STARBUCKS/SILVER CREEK PROPERTIES 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE A oW 500 FEET GENERAL PLAN: LR7 ZONING: R1 to C5 P LAN N N G A N 0 B U L D N G AGE N C Y 75'eLBjTf MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Usa 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 & BUILDtNG AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 (714) 667-2700. Fax (714) 973-1461 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Grand Avenue Starbuck/Commercial Development Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a change of zone from Single-Family Residence (Rl) to Arterial Commercial (C5) in order to allow the construction of a 1,700 square foot area for a Starbucks Coffee shop and a 1,000 square foot area for a future retail tenant_ Project Location: 2701 North Grand Avenue Project Number: ER 2003-262 Public Review Period: September 5, 2005 to September 24, 2005 Hearing Date: September 12, 2005 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City on or before September 24, 2005. Please direct your comments to: Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Ann Ni at (714) 667-2700. 7~~~Tf CS5lJ6.2 Fairhaven Starbucks/Commercial Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 2003-262 Purpose The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe the proposed project and provide an evaluation of potential environmental effects associated with the short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed Fairhaven Starbucks/Commercial Development Project. The Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Santa Ana CEQA Environmental Procedures. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the proposed project. Project Approval Process The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been submi tted to potentially affected agencies. In accordance with Section 15072 (b) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the project area. There will be a 20-day public review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines. In reviewing the Ini tial Study /Mi tigated Negati ve Declaration, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts on the environment and ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or mitigated through the design of the project. Comments on the Initial Study can be sent to the following: Mr. Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza PO Box 1988, M-20 Santa Ana, California 92702 758-13 Fairhaven Starbuck/Commercial Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 2003-262 Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for a change of zone from Single-Family Residence (R1) to Arterial Commercial (C5) in order to allow the construction of a 1,700 square foot area for a Starbucks Coffee shop and a 1,000 square foot area for a future retail tenant. Setting As shown on Exhibit 1, the project site is located at 2701 North Grand Avenue, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue. The property is approximately 0.40 acres in area, irregular in shape and currently vacant. The project site was the former location of a gasoline service station that was demolished in 1991. As shown on Exhibit 2 the project site is generally surrounded by commercial land uses. There are two existing multi-tenant buildings immediately to the north and east and a freestanding restaurant building located immediately to the north of the project site with reciprocal driveway easements. Access to the proposed project would be provided from both Grand Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) . Under the current General Commercial a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 0.5 is permitted. The intent of the General Commercial designation is to provide neighborhood facilities and services, including shopping, recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, employment and education. The zoning on the project site (R-1). Under the R-1 zoning uses are not permitted. is Single family Residential designation commercial land Project Description The project involves the construction of a foot building, including a 1,700 square Starbucks Coffee Shop and a 1,000 square new 2,700 foot area foot area square for a for a 1 758-14 ~ IlL TOYmlCOUNTAV RO \ ~ C j r y of 0 FAlFlHo\VEN ~V_ 6O-A1 ~ -7200 I R2""R2R1i ~ . R1 Rl R1 R1 J A1 , ,~ R1 R1 Rl R1 Rl i R1 ,~ ~. Rl Rl <Rl ~ R1 Rl R1 R1 ! Al -B C-SM Cl Gl-MD C2 C3 Co.A C4 C5 R1 ~R1 Rl j 0 ~ Al ~ , Rl Rl A1 ~"""----oI ^' ,-., ,-., , , Al 6O-R1-7200 Rl Rl R1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERG1AUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VilLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT CR GC Ml M2 MO o P PCD PRO Ora n 9 (> L f!\~~'ll"'~ '2,'2. o.~ 60-AI-7200 , '~';;==='':::'::'lr-:'rJ IIII 1111 ,III 1111 lJ)1 it l: IU' ,\..II l~)______-c::..-",",\ _ I( I{ -___ \' \'.....-' I, If A1 II II IIII 1111 11/1 1111 1,1, Ill! 1(11 )111 1,1i I'll ~.::.~~-====..!.-~..::. 60-A1-7200 R1 ~ R1 . 'R1i Rl R1 -AI """--ao' RI R2 R3 R4 RE SO SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN A AA 05-5 STARBUCKS/SILVER CREEK PROPERTIES 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE A oW 1"=1000 FEET P l A N N N G AND B U I l 0 EXHIBIT 1 758-15 - = 500 FEET N G A G E N C y ~ ~ ~ ~ " uJ ~ ::l Z '" " uJ " ~ " ~ 0 " ~ '" 0 " 0 " " "' 0 MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL " A P LAN N FAIRHAVEN AVENUE MULTI FAMILY RESfDENTfAL ~ ~ " ~ '" " " o " MUL TI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ~ 4:1. ca SINGLE FAMILY RES/DENTIAL AA 05-5 STARBUCKS/SILVER CREEK PROPERTIES 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE N G AND B U L 0 I N G AGE N C Y ~~~~ A d7{' future retail tenant. Additionally, a 416 outdoor seating area is proposed. The building maximum height of approximately 19-feet. square foot would have a The proposed Starbucks would provide sit-down services to its patrons and would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There is no drive-through window service proposed. The building's architecture style would be highlighted by a three-color exterior palette along with a low-rising stone veneer. A strong horizontal steel beam is proposed to mark the entry. Custom light poles and canvas awnings have also been proposed to accent the design of the building. The proposed proj ect has been designed to meet the City's development standards for eating establishment and retail uses. pedestrian and vehicular circulation has been provided in a safe and usable manner throughout the site. A combination of berms and hedges would be provided in the front yard setback area and along the street frontage to screen the parking area and reduce glare. The vehicular circulation system for the proj ect has been designed to avoid conflicts on-and off -si te. A total of 22 parking spaces would be provided on-site. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed project based on the City of Santa Ana CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by reference the analysis and findings provided in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01 (SCH 97071058) . For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where applicable, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts. I . AESTHETICS A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, trees, rock outpourings a State highway? including but not limited to and historic buildings within No Impact 2 758-17 According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01, the project site is void of any scenic vistas or scenic resources. Additionally, there are no scenic resources associated with a State Highway within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any scenic resource. C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and it's surrounding? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana has an adopted Urban Design Element that establishes policies, programs and design elements to enhance the aesthetic environment of the City. Development projects proposed in the City are reviewed for consistency with the Urban Design Element. The design elements that are relevant to the project site includes; Paths, and Districts. Paths Paths are means by which people travel throughout the City, and serves as the framework for the City's urban form. Within the project area the Urban Design Element identifies Grand Avenue as a Path. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation has been provided in a safe and usable manner throughout the site. A combination of berms and hedges would be provided in the front yard setback area and along the street frontage to screen the parking area, reduce glare and to promote an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian circulation path along Grand Avenue. Districts The General Plan Urban Design Element identifies that the project site is located within the Cabrillo Park Design District. The Urban Design Element establishes goals and policies to help guide the design of land uses proposed within a Design District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a Design District should exhibit high quality design and should incorporate design elements that are proportional and aesthetically related to the District setting. The proposed project has incorporated high quality building materials into the design of the proj ect. The building's 3 758-18 architecture style would be highlighted by a three-color exterior palette along with a low-rising stone veneer. A strong horizontal steel beam is proposed to mark the entryway. Custom light poles and canvas awnings have also been proposed to accent the design of the building. Through the City's site plan review process, the proposed project has been determined to be aesthetically consistent with the district setting and intent of the Urban Design Element. Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site or the surrounding area. D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact The project area is currently improved with existing on- street lighting. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare into the project area. II. AGRICULTURE A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use? B. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cUIIlulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agriculture use? No Impact According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not contain Unique Farmlands, Prime Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance. Based on the City's General Plan, the project site is not planned for agricultural uses. Additionally, the project site is not included within any existing Williamson Contracts. A site visit conducted by the City's Environmental Coordinator confirmed the project site is currently not in agriculture 4 758-19 production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? Less Than Significant 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 regional planning programs and local general plans. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in regional planning programs and/or local general plans. The proposed proj ect is consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the population and traffic growth projections in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed proj ect would be considered to be consistent with the regional and local growth projections and would not be in conflict with the air quality objectives established in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? D. Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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 5 758-20 currently a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified in Table AQ-1. Table AQ-l 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-term Operational Air Quality Impacts The primary source of long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be generated by vehicle travel to and from the project site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity usage. Table AQ-2 identifies the long-term operational emissions of the proposed project. As shown in Table AQ-2 long term operational emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD Thresholds and therefore less than significant long-term operational impacts would occur. Table AQ-2 Operational Emissions RaG NOX CO PmlO SOX Mobile 2.08 0.06 21. 5 0.03 0.00 Electrical Usage 0.00 0.10 .02 0.00 0.00 Natural Gas Usage 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 Total 2.08 0.19 21. 8 0.03 0.01 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 Significant Impact No No No No No Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Short-term constructed Related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project would result in short-term increases in particulate 6 758-21 mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants arising from construction of the proposed project would occur during the grading and excavation phases. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook as a guideline, the threshold for potentially significant short-term air quality impacts would involve the grading of 1,309,000 square feet of area. Assuming grading of the entire project site, approximately 18,000 square feet of area would be graded. The proposed grading would be considerably less than the threshold of significance established by the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. While the construction of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, dust that would be generated by grading activities could be a nuisance to nearby land uses. To contain and minimize dust impacts on the project site, the proposed proj ect would be subj ect to SCAQMD Rule 403. To ensure the proposed project complies with Fugitive Dust Rule 403, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. . Grading plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following notes: 1. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering with complete coverage shall occur at least twice daily, once in the late morning and once after work is done for the day. 2. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. 3. Streets surrounding the proj ect site should be cleaned at the end of each day of construction. 4. All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5. The amount earthwork times. of area activities disturbed shall be by clearing minimized at and all 7 758-22 6. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed proj ect would be consistent with the City's General Plan and the local growth forecasts for the Orange County sub region and regional emissions budget developed by the Southern California Association of Governments for the 1999 Air Quality Management Plan. SCAG has determined that the air pollution impacts of any project that conforms to local growth forecasts would be consistent with this forecast and the regional air quality impacts would be adequately mitigated by the Plan to a level considered less than significant. E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact The long-term operation of the proposed proj ect would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. Short-term construction operations could emit objectionable odors. However, they would be short - term and would not be considered significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 8 758-23 Department of Fish and game or U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact The project site is situated within an urban setting. According to the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base and the City's Updated General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01, there are no sensitive biological resources located on or within the nearby vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to any sensitive biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial of a historical 15064.5? adverse change in the significance resource as defined in Section No Impact According to the Santa Ana Local Register of Structures and the Federal Register of Structures, there are no historically significant located on the project site. Historical Historical structures B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the of a unique archaeological resource Section 15064.5? significance pursuant to C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 9 758-24 Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known cultural resources on the project site. The project site is currently improved. The probability for the discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction operations would be low. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS A-1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 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? No Impact According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the project site is not located within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault surface rupture hazard. The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or extend towards the project si te. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed project would be considered low. A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project site is situated within a highly active seismic region of southern California. A total of 38 active faults have been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the City of Santa Ana. The NewportjInglewood Fault located approximately 7 miles from the City would be considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The project site could potentially be subj ect to a maximum 7.0 earthquake from the NewportjInglewood fault. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result significant damage to the proposed project. However, the seismic risks at the project si te would not be considered significantly different from other areas in the southern California region. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a site-specific geologic study that addresses the seismic constraints on the project site and the building load requirements of the project. 10 758-25 Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the geologic study and compliance with the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential seismic hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure . Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific geotechnical report that addresses seismic constraints, liquefaction potential, soil conditions, project building load requirements and identifies design recommendations to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project. A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Soil liquefaction occurs when loose soil deposits below the water table are subjected to large ground accelerations generated from seismic events. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about 50-feet. The City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01 provides a broad overview of liquefaction risks in the City. According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01, the project site is considered to have Medium to High potential for liquefaction hazard impacts. However, site-specific geotechnical studies would need to be prepared to determine the onsite liquefaction risks on the project site. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical study that addresses the liquefaction constraints on the project site and the building load requirements of the proj ect. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. Preparation of the site-specific geotechnical report and compliance with the Uniform Building Code would reduce potential liquefaction hazard impacts to a level considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 11 758-26 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific geotechnical report that addresses seismic constraints, liquefaction potential, soil conditions, project building load requirements and identifies design recommendations to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project. A-4. Landslides No Impact The project area is flat without any topographical relief. According to City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97- 01, there are no landslide planes or slopes on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts in regards to landslides. B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the soil exposed. Construction operations for the proposed project would require the grading of onsite soils. The uncovered soils on the proj ect site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion impacts to a level considered less than significant, the following mitigation measure would be implemented. Mitigation Measure . Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall submit for review and approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the 12 758-27 street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01 the proposed project 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. In 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01 provides a broad characterization of soil conditions in the City. According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01 the project site consists of Mocho Loam Soils that have low shrink/swell potential, high potential for corrosion of uncoated steel and low potential for corrosion of concrete. Based on the soil conditions on the project site, the proposed project would be geotechnically feasible. However, a site-specific geotechnical study would need to be prepared to evaluate the project site specific soil conditions and the project building load requirements. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare a geotechnical report that address and identifies the geologic conditions on the project site, building load requirements of the project and design recommendations to ensure the geologic stability of the project. Mitigation Measure . Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific geotechnical report that addresses seismic constraints, liquefaction potential, soil conditions, project building load requirements and identifies design 13 758-28 recommendations to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project. E. Where sewers are wastewater is the of septic tanks systems? not available for the disposal of soil capable of supporting the use or alternative wastewater disposal No Impact The project site is located within urban setting where sewer service is available. The proposed project would not require septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Create a significant hazard to environment through the routine disposal of hazardous materials? the public transport, or the use or B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transportation, handling or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials or waste or the emission of hazardous emissions. The construction operations and the long-term operations associated with the proposed project could potentially involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as solvents, oils, and paints. However, the quantities would be minimal and would not pose a hazard to the public. C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact The project site was the former location of a service station. The service station was demolished in 1991. According to the City of Santa Ana Fire Department a 14 758-29 Closure Letter was issued by the City in 1994 for the removal of the underground storage tanks. The issuance of the Closure Letter indicates that no residual contamination is located on the project site. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an accident potential zone, clear zone or FAA Notification Area. Implementation of the proposed project would not pose a hazard to people working or residing within the project area. 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 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? 15 758-30 P. Have a potentially significant environmental impact or surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project site is located within the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. The water quality within the watershed is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the objectives, water quality standards and Best Management Practice requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The City of Santa Ana implements the goals, objectives and requirements of the Basin Plan and Drainage Area Management Plan through the City's Local Implementation Plan. The project site storm water flows would be conveyed by sheet flow northwesterly to an underground storm drain along Fairhaven Avenue to Santiago Creek and then to the Santa Ana River before ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified the mouth of the Santa Ana River at the Pacific Ocean as an impaired water body. Short-Term Construction Related Water Quality Impacts During construction operations there is the potential that surface water runoff could be degraded. If the degraded surface water runoff is conveyed into the local storm drain system, potential adverse water quality impacts could occur to downstream receiving waters. To minimize potential construction related water quality impacts, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement an erosion control plan. Long Term Operational Water Quality Impacts The primary concern with the operation urban runoff. Urban for water quality pollutants associated of the proposed proj ect would be from runoff is defined as runoff that occurs 16 758-31 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 urban runoff usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Additionally, adverse water quality impacts could occur from rain events when sediment, grease and oil on roadways and parking lots are flushed into the local storm drain system. Currently, the project site does not contain any structural Best Management Practices, which could potentially decrease the amounts of pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Uncontrolled urban runoff generated from the project site could result in adverse water quality impacts to downstream receiving waters. The proposed proj ect involves the development of restaurant uses on the proj ect site. Commercial kitchens could potentially produce grease as a by-product of their operation. If not properly disposed of, the grease could potentially create blockage of sewer lines, which could result in damages to both public and private property and potentially resulting in adverse water quality impacts. To reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable Site Design structural Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that include the following: a. Site Assessment b. Site Design BMP's c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMP's d. Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all structural BMP's shall be provided. 17 758-32 e. Selecting and sizing the Treatment Control BMP's f. Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMP's and to identify the entity in charge of implementation. . Prior to issuance of bui lding permits, shall provide payment of the Federal Protection Enterprise Fee. the applicant Clean Water . Building plans shall reflect that the kitchen for the proposed project shall be fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa.Ana Building Division. 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. Q. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No Impact The long-term operation of the proposed project would not have any impact on groundwater supplies. The proposed project would not interfere with ground water recharge because the site is not located in an area that is known to recharge the ground water system. Additionally, construction operations associated with the proposed project would not require dewatering operations that would encroach into the underground water basin. C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site? 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? L. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff? 18 758-33 M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project site is located within an urbanized area with improved drainage facilities. Based on preliminary analysis of drainage conditions and facilities on the project site and surrounding area, the City's Public Works Department has indicated that it is feasible that existing drainage facilities within the project area would be able to adequately drain the proposed project. To ensure the existing drainage facilities are adequate the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure . Prior to issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall submit a final run-off evaluation for review and approval showing the existing and proposed facilities and methods of draining the site without exceeding the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility. 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 housing within a IOO-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? H. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact According to the Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320163H, the project site is located within Flood Zone X and not subject to 100-year flood risks. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of flooding. IX. LAND USE/PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? 19 758-34 Less than Significant Impact The project site is surrounded by commercial land uses. Additionally, within the nearby vicinity are multiple family land uses. The proposed project would be compatible with the other commercial 1 and uses in the area and would provide supporting neighbor commercial uses to the multiple family land uses. The proposed project would not physically divide any established community and would be compatible with other existing land uses in the area. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC). Under the current General Plan designation a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 0.5 would be permitted. The proposed project would have a FAR of 0.15 and would be consistent with the intent General Commercial designation. The project site has a current zoning designation of Single-Family Residence (R1). Under the R-1 zoning, commercial land uses are not permitted. Additionally, the R-1 zoning is not a correlating land use with the existing General Commercial General Plan designation on the proj ect site. As part of the proposed proj ect the proj ect applicant is requesting a zone change from Single Family Residential (R- 1) to Arterial Commercial (C-S). The proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Arterial Commercial zoning and would be a correlating land use with the Community Commercial General Plan designation on the project site. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan? No Impact 20 758-35 According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the project site is not included within any habitat conservation plan or any natural community conservation plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES A. 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? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-1 there are no areas in Santa Ana that are designated as significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any regionally or locally important mineral resource. XI. NOISE Noise Standards The project site is located within the City of Santa Ana and subject to noise standards and guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Noise Element The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana Noise Element is to prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community, to minimize the adverse effects of existing noise sources and to site proposed land uses in areas that are compatible with the noise environment. In accordance with the Noise Element, the City has adopted noise standards and guidelines for land use planning. These guidelines for exterior noise levels are presented in Table N-l. 21 758-36 Table N-l City Of Santa Ana Land Use Guidelines For Exterior Noise Land Use Noise Level (dBA CNEL or Ldn) Desirable Maximum Acceptable Maximum Low Density 55 65 Residential Medium Density 60 65 Residential High Density 65 70 Residential Schools 60 70 Commercial, Office 65 75 Industrial 70 75 Noise Ordinance The City also regulates noise though Chapter 18, Article VI of the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance presents permissible noise intrusion levels and sets exterior and interior noise standards for different times of the day and night. Additionally, the Noise Ordinance recognizes that some forms of noise are required for urban development. Section 18-314 (e) of the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and no construction activity any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Threshold of Significance A project is considered to result in significant noise impacts when it exposes persons to noise levels that exceed the noise levels in Table N-1 or when a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3db or greater occurs when the existing CNEL is 65dB or greater. Additionally, a significant impact could occur when the stationary noise source of a project is in conflict with the City's Noise Ordinance. Less Than Significant Impact 22 758-37 A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. To increase the existing levels of traffic noise within the project area by 3dBA, a doubling of the existing traffic volumes would have to occur. The proposed project would generate 545 daily vehicle trips with 39 occurring in the AM Peak Hour and 39 occurring in the PM Peak Hour. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project would not double the existing traffic volumes in the project and would not increase the existing noise levels within the project area by 3 dBA. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase noise levels within the project area. According to the General Plan Land Use Element FEIR 97-01, at 50-feet from the centerline of Grand Ave, the noise level would be 69.5 CNEL at the projects landscape setback. Presently, the General Plan allows the sitting of commercial uses in areas exposed to noise levels up to 75 CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to significant noise impacts. B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would require conventional construction equipment and building practices. No significant ground borne noise impacts or ground borne vibration impacts would be associated with the proposed project. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. Less Than Significant Impact 23 758-38 construction activities and construction equipment staging operations associated with the proposed project would result in a short-term increase in ambient noise levels within the project area. Table N-2 identifies what the noise levels would be for different construction equipment. TABLE N-2 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Suggested Sound Range of Sound Levels for Levels Measured Analysis (dBA at Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet) 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 81 to 96 93 18,000 ft-1b/blow Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 To minimize potential construction-related noise impacts to a level considered less than significant, the project would be required to comply with City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance would limit construction activity between 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Saturday, and not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays. To ensure the project complies with the Noise Ordinance, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure . Demolition Plans, Grading Plans and Building Plans for the proposed project shall note that construction activities on the project site shall take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction activity on Sundays or federal holidays. . Demolition Plans, Grading Plans and Building Plans shall note "No construction equipment on the project site shall operate including warming up until after 7:00 a.m. " 24 758-39 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? 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. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly 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? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is an infill project and would not involve the construction new major roadways or infrastructure that would indirectly facilitate additional growth within the project area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not induce additional population growth into the area beyond local and regional growth projections. The project site is currently vacant and not compatible for single family residential development. Implementation of the proposed project would displace any existing households or eliminate future housing opportunities. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact The Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire protection and emergency medical services for the proposed project. 25 758-40 According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for fire protection services over current levels of demand within the project area and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate fire protection services. Additionally, through the City's development review process, the fire department has reviewed and determined that the proposed project would provide adequate fire protection facilities and services. Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impacts The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police protection services over current levels of demand within the project area and that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact The project site is within the boundaries of the Orange Unified School District (OUSD). The proposed project would not directly generate a demand for additional school services. However, the project would be subject to school impact fees to address cumulative impacts within OUSD. To help fund new construction of school facilities, OUSD has an adopted school impact fee of $.36 per square feet per square foot of commercial area. The payment of fees to the district would mitigate impacts on school services to a level considered less than significant. Parks, Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana presently operates 35 facilities within its parks and recreation network, along with several public school grounds. The park and recreation facilities within the City of Santa Ana include 342.5 acres of lands, which is equivalent to approximately one acre per 1,000 residents. According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the City's current goal for parkland is 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Based on the Cities current parkland goal and existing parkland to population ratio, 26 758-41 additional parkland is needed to meet the park needs of the community. The proposed project would not directly generate additional population in the City that would further contribute to the imbalance parkland to population ratio in the City. Additionally, it is anticipated that the proposed project would have a minimal amount of employees. It would be unlikely that that the employees would be from other areas and would relocate into Santa Ana. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant to park and recreation 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. Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in Section XIII, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demands for existing recreation facilities or generate the demand for additional recreation facilities. xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact 27 758-42 The proposed project would generate 545 daily vehicle trips with 39 occurring in the AM Peak Hour and 39 occurring in the PM Peak Hour. The projected traffic trips would be consistent with the traffic projections within the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Public Works Department has determined that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant project- related traffic impacts or individually or cumulatively exceed any required level of service established by the City or by the County's Congestion Management Program. To provide for regional transportation impacts the proposed project would be subject transportation system improvement fees. 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? No Impact The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a single-story restaurant/retail building. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not result in any substantial safety risks related to aircraft traffic. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature Less Than Significant Impact Construction operations associated with the proposed project could result in a short-term increase of construction traffic volumes within the project area. However, the increased level of construction traffic is not expected to significantly increase vehicle or pedestrian hazards within the project area. E. Result in inadequate emergency access Less Than Significant Impact As part of the City's development review process, the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for potential impacts in regards to emergency access. The Fire Department has determined that adequate emergency access would be provided. 28 758-43 F. Result in inadequate parking capacity Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would comply with the City's parking requirements for restaurant and retail uses. No adverse parking impacts would be associated with implementation of the proposed project. G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation No Impact The proposed project would not be in conflict with any adopted policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing public transportation facilities. XVI. UTILITIES 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? 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 providers existing commitments. Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) would provide wastewater service to the project site. The project area is improved with sewer facilities. A system of local and regional sewer lines would convey wastewater flows to OCSD Reclamation Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley. The treatment plant treats approximately 90 million gallons per day. 29 758-44 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the City's wastewater demand by 200 gallons per day. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General plan and the water demands of the proposed project are accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan. According to the Water Department, there would be no adverse impacts associated with providing wastewater service to the project. Additionally, the City's Water Department indicates that that there would available capacity in the existing sewer lines to accommodate the proposed project. The project would be subject to sewer connection fees with the City and the Orange County Sanitation District. The wastewater flows generated from the proposed project would provide an incidental increase in the amount of wastewater flows to the Reclamation Plant No. 1 and would have less than a significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. 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 effects. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within an area that is currently improved with drainage facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of surface water runoff generated from the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new drainage facilities that would impact the environment. D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would increase the City's domestic water demand by approximately 220 gallons per day. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Through the City's development review process, the Public Works Department has indicated that the City would have the ability to provide adequate water service to the project site. No adverse impacts in regards 30 758-45 to the provision of adequate water service would be associated with the proposed project. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste collection services to the project site. Solid waste is transported to the Environmental Service transfer station in Irvine, and then taken to the Bowerman Landfill. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept 8,500 tons per day and is anticipated to close in year 2024. As part of the General Plan, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to divert fifty percent of the City's solid waste generated from landfill disposal. The City has implemented several waste reduction programs including green waste programs, source reduction programs, and recycling programs. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the proposed project would generate an additional 14 pounds per day of solid waste. The increases in solid waste would be considered minor in comparison to the 8,500 tons of solid waste taken to the Bowerman Landfill daily. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Cities waste reduction programs. 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. No Impact 31 758-46 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish, wildlife species, or historic structures in that no fish, wildlife populations or historic structures are known to exist on the project site. B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulati ve impacts. The proj ect' s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building code, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and applicable City Ordinances, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a restaurant and retail land uses. The project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation measures have been required for the construction and operation of the proposed project to insure that the project would not have a direct or indirect adverse significant impact to human beings or the environment. XVIII DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. 32 758-47 XVIV REFERENCES City of Santa Ana General Plan, September 1982 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, SC No. 97071058, October 1997, Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Element, August 1997 City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines, 2001 Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, March 2004 National Register of Historical Resources City of Santa Ana Local List of Historical Resources California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320163H City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Seismic Hazard Zone Map Personal Communication, Jay Bento, Santa Ana Fire Department, August 2005 XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator 33 758-48 Grand Avenue Starbucks/commercial Development Mitigation Monitoring Program ER 2003-262 Mitigation Measure I Agency Approval Prior to Grading Permits Grading plans for the proposed Planning/Building project shall reflect the following notes: 1. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering with complete coverage shall occur at least twice daily, once in the late morning and once after work is done for the day. 2. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. 3. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of each day of construction. 4. All material transported off site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 758-49 5. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be minimized at all times. 6. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. Prior to the issuance of Planning/Building grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific geotechnical report that addresses seismic constraints, liquefaction potential, soil conditions, project building load requirements and identifies design recommendations to ensure the geotechnical stability of the project. Prior to issuance of a grading Public Works permit the project applicant shall submit for review and approval a surface drainage/grading/erosion control plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of flow to the adjacent street. The plan is to include existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb. Prior grading to the permit issuance of a the applicant Public Works 758-50 shall submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan that depicts all applicable Site Design structural Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works grading permit the applicant shall provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan that include the following: a. Site Assessment b. Site Design BMP's c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMP's d. Mechanisms by which funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all structural BMP's shall be provided. e. Selecting and the Treatment BMP's f. Operation Maintenance describe the operation maintenance requirements of all applicable structural BMP's and to identify the entity in charge of implementation. sizing Control and Plan to long-term and Prior to issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall submit a final run-off evaluation for review and approval showing the existing and proposed facilities and Public Works 758-51 methods of draining the site without exceeding the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility. Grading Plans and Building Planning/Building Plans for the proposed project shall note that construction activities on the project site shall take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction activity on Sundays or federal holidays. Grading Plans and Building Planning/Building Plans shall note "No construction equipment on the project site shall operate including warming up until after 7:00 a.m. " Prior to Buildine Permits Prior to issuance of building Public Works permits, the applicant shall provide payment of the Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fee. Building plans shall reflect Planning/Building that the kitchen for the proposed project shall be fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. Grading Plans and Building Planning/Building Plans for the proposed project shall note that construction activities on the project site shall take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction activity on Sundays or federal holidays. 758-52 Grading Plans and Building Plans shall note "No construction equipment on the project site shall operate including warming up until after 7:00 a.m." Planning/Building 758-53 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Grand Avenue Commercial Development III. II. Project Numbers: ER 2003-262 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: 2701 North Grand Avenue Environmental Determination A. 0 On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: B. ~ C. 0 D.D E. 0 F. 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project cculd have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Although the proposed project cculd have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. Pursuant to Secfion 15164 of the CEOA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEOA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new informafion of substanfial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. l)~t~~~ Signature 1}o..V\. -=tSo-tt- Pnnted Name Auoust 31. 2005 Date db\Env Form CECA Chklst 758-54 Page 1 of 1 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief explanation is required for ali 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 Impacf' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impacf' 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 Impacf' to a "Less than Significant Impacf'. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefty explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics - Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 M B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 % to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ~ or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ~ in the area? 0 0 0 db\Env Form CEQA Chklst Page 1 of 12 AT1f5g~5B ~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.) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? o o o o o o o o o # ft( qf 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 detenminations. Would the project: A. conftict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or ccntribute 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 ccncentrations? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATT1&~:g6B o o o o o % ~ o ~ o o ~ o o o o Page 2 of 12 ~'A 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. Conftict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ord inance? 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTt~:g7B Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o Less Than Sig nificant Impact ~ o o o o o # ~ No Impact o ~ ~ M M ~ o o 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 CEQA Chklst A15~~5W" B Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Uniess Mitigation Incorporated o o o )sf ~ o ~ o ~ o Less Than Significant Impact K o o o o o o o o o No Impact o o ~ o o ~ o E( o )it Page 4 of 12 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter miie 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 miies 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 (I.e., 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 ATTt~:g9B Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o ftr o Less Than Significant Impact J( ~ o o o o No Impact o o ,ft( K o % Page 5 of 12 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in ftooding 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 ftoodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other ftood hazard delineation map? G. Place within a 100-year ftoodplain structures which would impede or redirect ftood flows? H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving ftooding, including ftooding 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 Fonn CEQA Chklst ATTt~:gbB Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inccrporated o )Q ~ o o o ~ )Lf- )Zt ~ Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o No Impact o o o ~ ~ }?1 o o o o Page 6 of 12 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff ftow 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 db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATYS'Er~1 B o o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant )( ~ ~ , o )\1 ~ o o o o Potentially Significant o o o o o o o ~ Q( o o Less Than Significant o o o o ft( o o o o x J( No Impact Page 7 of 12 ~'A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XI. Noise - Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne 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? Impact o o o o o o o o Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o ~ o o o o Impact j!( ~ )( o o ~ ~ >{ o o o o ~ o o o Issues & Supporting Information Sources db\Env Form CEQA Chklst Potentially Potentially Less Than No Page 8 of 12 ATY5~_'Er2 B ~'A 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 governmentai facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation I Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) db\Env Fonn CECA Chklst ATTf5~~3B Slgnltlcant Impact o o o o o o o o o Slgnltlcant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o Significant Impact o ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ )( J( Impact o o o o o o o o o Page 9 of 12 r ~'A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources 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. Conftict 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 suppiies 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? db\Env Form CEQA Chklst ATTtS'B1~4B Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact j( o .M .%!. ~ D' i2< ~ b( ~ g( No Impact o ~ o o o Jl( o o o o o Page 10 of 12 ~"A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources 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 ATTt5'e'~lf5B Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D. o o ~ ~ Less Than Significant Impact ~ %- o o o No Impact o o ;2( o o Page 11 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. NS-2704 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2701 NORTH GRAND AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (R1) TO ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL (C5) (AA NO. 2005-05) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting approval of an amendment application No. 2005-05 to change the zoning designation from Single-Family Residence (R1) to Arterial Commercial (C5) in order to allow the construction of a retail building with a Starbucks at 2701 North Grand Avenue. (AA No. 2005-05) B. On October 10, 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and by a vote of 6:0 (Lutz absent) recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2003-262. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2005-05. C. On November 7, 2005 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Amendment Application No. 2005-05 is consistent with the General Plan, including but not limited to its goals and policies to preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Land Use Element Goal No. 3.0. E. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies and has determined that based upon this balancing that the project is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. F. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated November 7, 2005 accompanying this matter. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2005-05 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. 758-66 Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program for Environmental Review No. 2003-262 prepared with respect to this Project. It is determined that, as required pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Pursuant to Title XIV, Califomia Code of Regulations ("CCR") S 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code S 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR S 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 3. The real property located at 2701 North Grand Avenue is hereby reclassified from Single-Family Residence (R1) to Arterial Commercial (C5). (AA No. 2005-05) Amended Sectional District Map number 32-4-9 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this _ day of November, 2005. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 758-67 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilrnembers NOES: Councilmernbers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Council members CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS-2704 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 758-68 ~ ~~ ::i+-~ ui ~ .CIIYOF i ~ 0 C i I Y 0 f Orange ZZ C5 31..1-9 + 6M"\ \5.5.9 o a '" " SANTA ANA 11mllll FAIRHAVEN , ,----- Zoning Dishict A1 .8 C1 Cl-MO C2 C3 C3-A C4 C5 CR GENERALAGRIGULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VilLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL In___c .,Hl.; AES.iAAIANX.NO 5576 "" ~ 6?2~6 ~ i , P A ~ 6(l-A1. -7200 GRD.IAES.NO N&576 N&588 N$-S13 NS-S24 NS.825 N& ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO 5166 BY THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISION PART OF ORDINANCE NO. NS-394 ADOPTED BY THE SANTA ANA CITY COUNCil, AUGUST 17, 1959 C-SM GC M1 M2 MO o P PCO PO PRO SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 R1-4000 R2 R3 R4 RE SO SP 65.19' ~oo. 5$7 56n 6044 AAa76 N&9" NS-955 N&964 NS_l1Rl NS-1661 A(IOPTEDOATE 2-6-62 8-:'HI~ 10.15_"2 1~-3-62 1~65 12-20-55 1-2-00 2-17-00 "21_69 12-17_" 12-6-<32 APPP~OVEO <1t4- SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN uj ;:r R1 z ;:: en ::> I- 3H_9 &'-91~ AVE. SCAlEINFE"ET ,= 60 MINIMUM FRONTAGE -6000 MINIMUM LOTARE"A lal""tRovisionDale 8-10-05 THIS MAP IS T1-1E OFRCIAI. SECTKlNAI. DISTRICTMAPOFT1-1ECITYOFSANTAMlA A.$AUTHORllEDBYCITYCOUNCll RESOLUTION NO. 7'-163, DATEO 11_1~_7', I HEAEBYATTESTTHATTHISMAPISATAUE COPYOFT1-1EORIGINAlSECTIONAlDISTR'CT MAP NO. 32-4-g. .sog""d <11"1- PHil FREELAND EXECUTIVEOJFli'CTOR COMMUNITYDI'I'HOf'!.lENT&HOUSINGAGENCY C."i~""toP'Io~~!.TEM6ER 10. '?!lL- PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA EmI 758-70