Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31A - 2100 W ALTONREQUEST FOR ~~; COUNCIL ACTION ~a CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 7, 2008 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-12 AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2006-04 TO ALLOW THE YMCA TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY AT 2100 WEST ALTON AVENUE - YMCA OF ORANGE COUNTY, APPLICANT CITY NAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15~ Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 as conditioned and Minor Exception No. 2006-04 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On December 10, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 as conditioned and adopted a Minor Exception No. 2006-04 as conditioned to allow a community service center in the Specific Development District No. 4 (SD-4) and to allow shared parking between adjacent uses at 2100 West Alton Avenue by a vote of 5:0 (Alderete and De La Torre absent). The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. J M. Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb of/reports/cup06-12&me06-04.cc 31 A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-12 AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2006-04 TO ALLOW THE YMCA TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY AT 2100 WEST ALTON AVENUE Prepared by Vince Fregoso PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO iL~ Executive Director Planning Manage RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 as conditioned. 2. Adopt a resolution conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant approving Minor Exception No. 2006-04 as The YMCA of Orange County is requesting the renewal of a conditional use permit and minor exception to allow a community service facility and shared parking in the Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) zoning district at 2100 West Alton Avenue. Property Description The YMCA site is a square shaped, 2.4-acre vacant parcel of land located at the intersection of South Raitt Street and West Alton Avenue. The parcel is within the Armstrong Ranch development site, a 90-acre parcel of land that was previously utilized for agricultural purposes and was entitled to allow residential, religious and school uses. The site is zoned Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7), which allows single-family development at a density of seven units per acre. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north; an elementary school, residential and the future Christ Our Savior Cathedral parish to the south; single-family development and the future cathedral to the east; and Segerstrom High School to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2). EXHIBIT A 31 A-2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 Minor Exception No. 2006-04 December 10, 2007 Page 2 Project Description The YMCA of Orange County received approval in 2004 to construct a two- story, 32,338 square foot community facility that will offer youth and family oriented programs to residents and businesses of the community. The first floor of the facility will be almost 16,900 square feet in size and will include multi-purpose rooms, a teen center and locker rooms. The second floor is approximately 15,500 square feet and will have exercise rooms, a wellness center and staff offices. Exterior amenities to be provided include a swimming pool, a whirlpool, a speed soccer arena, and a rock climbing/teen adventure area. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. These hours have been coordinated with the Diocese to ensure that no conflict will exist between church services and YMCA operations. A minor exception was approved for the YMCA and Cathedral Parish to share parking. A total of 216 spaces will be provided, with 203 stalls required by code. Of these spaces, 116 will be on the YMCA site. The building has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the development within Armstrong Ranch. The concrete tilt-up structure, along with earth tone paint colors and a metal seam roof, will be consistent with various Armstrong Ranch structures and the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibits 3 through 5). Analysis of the Issues On January 20, 2004, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-35 and Minor Exception No. 2003-10 to allow a new facility for the YMCA of Orange County. Due to unanticipated delays in fundraising for the project, the two year time period to begin construction on the project has passed. The YMCA is now requesting to renew the entitlements and allow construction of its community service center. Two concerns that were previously raised with the project will be addressed. Since the site did not comply with parking, the Diocese of Orange and the YMCA have entered into a written agreement to share parking on the church site. A parking demand analysis for the facility validated that sufficient parking would be provided with the agreement (Exhibits 6 and 7). Second, the potential impacts from illuminated signage into the residential neighborhood have been addressed as the applicant will limit the signage to a non-illuminated monument sign and non-illuminated or back lit wall signs. 31 A-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 Minor Exception No. 2006-04 December 10, 2007 Page 3 The YMCA intends to complete their fundraising in the next few years, with construction anticipated to begin in 2008 and occupancy by 2009. The construction of this facility will meet the needs of an underserved area of the community by providing a first class recreation and meeting facility in south Santa Ana. Conditions of approval have been added to mitigate potential negative impacts. As a result, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 and Minor Exception No 2006-04 as conditioned. CEQA Compliance After completion of Environmental Review No. 03-233, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was filed for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit 8). ~J ~ Vince Freg so, A CP Senior Pla ner VF:jm of/reports/cup06-12&me06-04.pc 31 A-4 At GENERAL AGRICULTURAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION C7 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL C7-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ~~ IDAMASCVS CI ^ C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -F FLOOR AREA RATIO GC GOVERNMENT CENTER M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL M2 HEAW INDUSTRIAL MO MILITARY OPERATIONS 0 OPEN SPACE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE P PROFESSIONAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SP SPECIFIC PLAN CUP 06-12/M E 06-4 YMCA OF ORANGE COUNTY ~ 2100 WEST ALTON AVENUE - - =500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1 31 A-5 ~ ~ a~ S R V~ S R N s F R MOORE AVENUE I ~ _~ S/ N L E A I L Y R E S I E T I L Q ~ S/NGL FAMIL RESIDENTIAL CUP 06-12/M E 06-4 YMCA OF ORANGE COUNTY ~\ 2100 WEST ALTON AVENUE ~ P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 31 A-6 ALTON AVENUE P yb ~~1 ~ e ~yj e ~.r I ~ r. f ~j a 1 I ~ 1 K -- _ = - t- ~_ _ _,, ~'~ ,d~ ~,_ _ ~j e4~ x - ~ ;, , _ .~4 ,~ ~_ _ , ._~ - __ _. _~ - - - - 5 ~ E § i ~ 1 2 $~ ac 8= ~: -~_, ~_ ~ ~ A .4 ~#F -s ,, - - ~ ~.. ~. _ _~ ~_ ~~ ,~. ~- ,~ r Ej~~3 ~ E 1 c F / ~/ 1 ~•~' r`J~ ~ ~ f K~ g o ~, Z ~ ~ I a N ~ - ;~ _ I^\ !' R ~ ~ 2 j ~ t~ is p ~: '~ _ ;~ N ~ ._ ._,~-r~ ~ ~~ y ~ z ~ -- ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~f~ z J ~ - , Qa GT - ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~~ r~ dSo- ~ U ~ Q ~~e ~ ~ U .°s - ~ } W Q -- Q ~ Q Fz 4 -~ _ - r z Q w-y W Q~ Q d. e~- a z 0 ~ ~ -- Q -- o ~ I (n a r F_ P J F / O '~ -~~~ ~ ~ ~~' _;_ ~- ~ _~ z _„/~ ~ ~\" a F - ,; oi~p - __ - - -_ -- - ~ '' ;~ --- r __~ Y ~~ ~ gQ Y bN - ~~ - a~ a o~ CU~~y~/II~ 06-4 =z U Q Z J Qa ~w m ~, Q~ V ~ ~~ } w Q v~, zQ Q~ H~ z w Q~ ~a ~O w~ z °- Z Q z M a w C 6 • N O d d s s ~ ~ s ~ `s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ p i ^ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~s ~~~~~-~ ~ y~ ~~ r~~r~~ n ~~ 33 ~ ~ Z ~: 1-~7 ~ CUP 06-12/ME 06-4 E~~~~9 i I~ W T. W ~~ i= iO ~ ~_ ~_ C aQ aV 9 , , o~ ~ ~ ya ° ~Zo a a v E 0 ~= v e ~ ~ z ~ Zci € ' °~~~ C Q d .m W c a Z $ a ~~ ~ ~ .. j , 3 • E N G I N E E R S Table 1 Parking Demand Summary: Monday -Saturday Parking Demand (Spaces) • New Location Time of Da Egistin Locations Design Profile {Member-based) Worst Case Profile (Program Area-based) 7:00 AM 106 133 2 162 9:00 AM 108 135 165 10:00 AM 94 118 144 12:00 PM 86 108 132 2:00 PM 62 78 95 4:00 PM 65 81 99 6:00 PM b5 81 99 8:00 PM 39 49 60 10:00 PM 22 28 34 1 Based on 100%ile demand for the indicated time period during any of the indicated days Z Bold face indicates on-site supply exceeded, requiring off site share parking support CUP 06-12/ME 06-4 n:\2300\20223681Tabies\2368-SummaryTabie.xls ~~IT~ 0 • E N G I N E E R S Table 2 Parking Demand Summary: Sunday Parking Demand (Spaces) • • New Location Time of Da Ezistin Locations Design Profile (Member-based) Worst Case Profile (Program Area-based) 7:00 AM 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 p 0 12:00 PM 32 40 49 2:00 PM 38 48 58 4:00 P 38 48 58 6:00 PM 25 31 3 g 8:00 PM 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 ~ Based on 100%ile demand for the indicated time period during the indicated day CUP 06-12/ME 06-4 n:~2300~2022368\Tables~2368-SammaryTable.xls ~~~'~7~ f_ MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEht Brett E. Franklin • COUNCILMEh16ERS Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia lose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-201 P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph ~v. Fletcher CLERKO'~ THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Armstrong Ranch YMCA Facility Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a community service center within the Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) zoning district. Additionally, a minor exception would. be required to allow the community service center to share parking facilities with a future CatFriolic Cathedral • that would be located immediately east of the project site. Project Location: 2100 West Alton Avenue Project Number: ER-2003-233 Public Review Period: 12-5-2003 to 12-24-2003 Hearing Date: 12-22-2003 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 12-24-2003. Please direct your comments to Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Vince • Fregoso at (714) 667-2700. CU P~~1~_ ~~ L -4 Page 1 of 45 c> ecaz MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Brett E. Franklin COUNCIIMEMBERS • Claudia C. Alvarez Lisa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLER'~OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy ...-.n_.c rr--+.s.-.-_~+c~~r.e. - aaC~r. e~+..e~{s..e~es»..~ea ITIGATsED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number: ER 2003-233 Applicant: Jon Voget, YMCA of Orange County • Project Location /Address: 2100 West Alton Avenue Project Title /Description: Armstrong Ranch YMCA Facility/The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a community service center within the Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) zoning district. Additionally, a minor exception would be required to allow the community service center to share parking facilities with a future Catholic Cathedral that would be located immediately east of the project site. And does hereby find: That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impac o below a level of significance. Signature: .1 Date: / ~ ~~ ^ ~~~ Environmental Coordinator • This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. "fe~~ Ci Y•~Z INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~ ARMSTRONG YMCA FACILITY ER-2003-233 Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a community service center within the Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) zoning district. Additionally, a minor exception would be required to allow the community service center to share parking facilities with a future Catholic Cathedral that would be located immediately east of the project site. Location The project site is located at 2100 West Alton Avenue, near the intersection Alton Avenue and Raitt Street. The project site consists of 2.37 acres and surrounded by a future Catholic Cathedral and associated parking facilities to the south, east and west and residential uses to the north. The project site has a current General Plan designation of LR- • 7.0 and a Zoning designation of Specific Development. Presently, the project site is vacant. Background The project site is included within the Armstrong Ranch Development Project Area. The Armstrong Ranch Development Project is a 46.9-acre area bounded by Alton Avenue to the north,. MacArthur Boulevard to the south, Raitt Street to the. west and-Bear Street to the east. The eastern-31.33 acres of the project area consists of 156-single-family dwellings currently under construction.. The eastern 15-acres of the project area is the location of a proposed 99,000 square foot Catholic Cathedral. The entire project area is included within Specific Development Zoning District SD-4. Presently, SD-4 conditionally permits community service centers. The Armstrong Ranch Development Project Final EIR was approved in October of 2002. The Final EIR analyzed potential project-related and cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the Armstrong Ranch Development Project. Project Description • The proposed community service center would be two-story, 32,338 square foot facility. The first floor of the facility would 3 ~~~~~ • consist of almost 16,900 square feet•of area and would include two multi-purpose rooms, a teen center, a child watch area- and locker rooms. The second floor would encompass approximately 15,500 square feet. of area and would contain three exercise rooms, a wellness center and staff offices and storage area. Situated behind the building would be a swimming pool, a whirlpool, a speed soccer arena, and a teen adventure and rock- climbing wall. ,. C7 A total of 203 parking stalls are required for the project. However, a total of 116 would be provided. To meet the parking standard, a minor exception would be required to allow the project to share parking with the future Catholic Cathedral to the east. Environmental Impact Analysis The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed project based on the City of Santa Ana's CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The analysis incorporates by reference the analysis and findings provided for in the Armstrong Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of impact that is anticipated to occur. Where applicable, mitigation measures from the Armstrong Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts. Additionally, the environmental analysis has been supplemented with site-specific mitigation measures to mitigate site-specific impacts. I. AESTHETICS A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a'scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a State highway? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within an urban setting and surrounded by developed land. uses. There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any scenic vista or scenic resources along a State Highway. ~~ ~~ 15 . C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and it's surrounding? Less Than Significant Impact The General Plan Urban Design Element identifies that the project site is located within the Armstrong 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. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the design standards established in the SD-4- Zoning Document. The SD-4 design guidelines establish a framework to maintain design consistency between the ultimate development pattern of Armstrong Ranch and individual development projects. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project was determined to be consistent with the City's Urban • Design Element and the SD-4 design guidelines. Compliance with the Urban Design Element and the SD-4 design guidelines would reduce potential aesthetics impacts to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not degrease the existing visual character of the project site or surrounding project 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 Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce substantial amounts of new sources of light and glare into the project area. Any lighting provided on the project site would be designed and located so that all direct rays are confined to the project site. I. 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? ~ 3P~ Hof 1 • C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, w~iich, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agriculture use? No Impact The project site was designated as Prime Agriculture Land, by the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Armstrong Ranch Project assumed development of the entire project site, resulting in the loss of Prime Agriculture Land. The loss of Prime Agriculture Land was evaluated in the Armstrong Ranch Final Environmental Impact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss of additional. agriculture lands. No adverse impacts to any agricultural resources would be associated with the proposed project. AIR QUALITY A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or congestion Management Plan? • No Impact The proposed 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 project would be consistent with the General Plan and would be consistent with the growth projections and air quality objectives established in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. B. Violate any stationary source aix quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality • violation? ~ 'P~e(~of • 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 currently a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified in Table 1 below. Table 1 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 operational emissions would be generated by vehicle travel to and from the project site. A relatively minor amount of gaseous emissions would also occur from natural gas and electricity usage. The proposed project would generate approximately, 732 vehicle trips per day. Given the limited amount of vehicle trips generated by the proposed project and the size of the proposed project,. operational emissions. generated by the proposed project are anticipated to be less than signifi-cant. Short-term constructed Related Air Quality Impacts Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in particulate mater, and to a lesser degree increases in carbon monoxide and ozone. Peak day construction emissions for most pollutants would occur during the clearing, :excavation and grading phases. The proposed project would require earthwork activity to provide for the construction of building areas and onsite access .ways. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the threshold of potentially significant short-term air quality impacts would involve the 5 ~~e/"`of 1 V • grading of 1,309,000 square feet of area. Assuming grading of the entire project site, approximately 108,900 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. Additionally, the project would be subject South Coast Air Quality Management District Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust impacts. To insure the project complies with Fugitive Dust Rule 403, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure Grading plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following notes: • 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. • 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. • Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of each day of construction. • All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently: .watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be minimized at all times. • Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. • To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be used for onsite and. offsite construction activities. 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? 3 fi~=~` J ~i • • Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and therefore would be consistent with 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. SLAG 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. D. Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact The project site is within proximity of several sensitive land uses. As mentioned previously, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant long-term or short-term air quality impacts. The project is also consistent with the City's General Plan and thus consistent with the South Coast Management Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial concentrations of air quality pollutants. E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not generate significant objectionable odors to the public. Construction operations associated with the proposed project could emit construction equipment emission odors that could potentially be objectionable. However, the potential impact would be short-term and would not be considered a significant impact. 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? 7 ~f4~0 • _ B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian ha~iitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other 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 EIR, 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 onsite sensitive biological resources. • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Santa Ana Local Register of Historical Structures and the .Federal Register of Historical Structures, there are no historically significant structures located on the project site. B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated According to an Archeological Survey prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project (Greenwood and Associates, 2001), there are no recorded sites within Armstrong Ranch or within 1/, • mile of the project area. Therefore, the potential for discovery of prehistoric or historical archaeological sites on the project site would be considered low. However, according to the R 3~a~'s9~# . archeological survey, the general project area was once settled by Native American groups. There is the probability that cultural materials may be present below the surface. Construction operations associated with the proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts to unknown cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts. to unknown cultural resources to a level considered Less than significant. Mitigation Measure • If cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, all construction operations shall cease in the location of the finding and the City's Environmental Coordinator shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to identify and evaluate the materials and to design and implement any mitigating measures found to be justified. No constriction activities shall resume until authorization is obtained from the City's Director of Planning and Building Services. C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique • paleontogical resource or site? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated According to Paleontologic Resource Inventory/Impact Assessment (Palen Environmental Associates, June 2001), the project site lies on the Tustin Plain in the Northern Peninsular Ranges Province and that young alluvial fan deposits underlie the majority of the project site.-Elsewhere on and near the Tustin Plain, young alluvial fan deposits have yielded fossilized bones and teeth representing continental vertebrate species of late Pleistocene and presumed earlier Holocene age. These deposits have been encountered at depths of 6 to 10 feet below grade. The occurrence of fossils in the Tustin Plan indicates that it is probable that unknown paleontological resources may be present. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Lowery Associates, 2002)prepared for the Armstrong Development Project recommends removal of existing fill and removal depths generally expected to range from 2 to 5 feet below existing grade. Construction plans have not been finalized. However, if excavation exceeds 5 feet in depth, then the potential exists for significant impacts to unknown paleontological resources that could be present. • ~ ~ la~„~~ • - Mitigation Measures ~ The mitigation measures below would be required if plans indicate that excavation activities-for the proposed project would exceed 5 feet in depth. • Prior to any earth-moving activity in the parcel, a vertebrate paleontologist retained by the developer and approved by the City of Santa Ana shall develop a storage agreement with the LACMVP, the County of Orange paleontologic collection storage facility, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the parcel as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository. • The paleontologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that, when implemented during earth-moving activities in the parcel, shall allow for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by • these activities. • The paleontologist and a paleontologic construction monitor shall attend a pregrading meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures and lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earth-moving activities, particularly when a monitor is not on site. • Paleontologic monitoring of earth-moving activities (particularly trenching) will be conducted by the monitor on a full-time basis once these activities have exceeded a depth 5 feet below current grade. Earth-moving activities in areas of the parcel where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but otherwise not disturbed shall not be monitored. Monitoring shall include the inspection of debris piles generated by trenching and other earth-moving activities at depths greater than 5 feet below current grade. • If fossil remains are found by the monitor, earth-moving activities will be diverted temporarily around the fossil site until .the remains have been recovered and these • activities allowed to proceed through the site by the monitor. lu ~~e~~L v • ~ • ..' • If too few or no fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earth-moving activities in areas of the parcel underlain by a particular rock unit have been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in the remaining areas of the parcel where underlain by the same rock unit. • If fossil remains are encountered by earth-moving activities when the monitor is not on site, these activities shall be diverted around the fossil site and the monitor called to the site immediately to recover the remains. • If fossil remains are found, up to 6,000 pounds (3 tons) of fossiliferous rock shall be recovered from the fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit. The total weight of all processed samples from the parcel shall not exceed 6,000 pounds. • Any recovered fossil remains shall be prepared to the point • of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then shall be curated (assigned and labeled with museum repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data shall be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate. museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains then shall be accessioned into the museum repository fossil collection, for permanent storage, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators. • A final report of results and findings shall be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the City of Santa Ana and the museum repository following accessioning of the proposed project fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report shall describe . the geology and stratigraphy of the parcel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the ~; 31P~1~~ . scientific importance of the specimens, and discuss theme relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions. 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 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and counties in protecting the public health and safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or other ground failure and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Additionally, the Alquist-Priolo Act directs the State Geologist to delineate regulatory zones .that • encompass surface traces of active faults that have potential for future surface fault rupture to regulate development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. The Tustin Quadrangle Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones was reviewed to evaluate the site location relative to mapped zones of required investigation for liquefaction and earthquake- induced land slides. 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 project towards the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed project is considered low. A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact 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 project site. The Newport/Inglewood Fault located approximately • 13 miles south from the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. The project site could potentially be subject to a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g from a magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Newport/Inglewood fault zone. A seismic event of this scale could potentially result significant damage to the proposed project. However, the seismic risks at the project site would not be considered significantly different from other areas in .the southern California region. To minimize potential seismic shaking impacts the proposed project would. be subject to seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code.. Additionally, .the proposed project would be required to prepare a construction- level geotechnical report to address the seismic constraints on the project site and to identify design recommendations to insure the geotechnical stability of the project site. A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact 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. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project, the project site is considered to have low potential for liquefaction. A-4. Landslides No Impact The project area is flat without any .topographical relief. According to geotechnical investigation prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project, there are no landslide planes or slopes within the project area. Therefore, implementation of the 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 1? 3'~i~5 • 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 excavation, removal and recompaction of onsite soils, importing of fill material, and grading. The uncovered soils on the project site could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to onsite and offsite drainage facilities. This potential impact could increase during periods of rain. To reduce potential erosion impacts to a level considered less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit for review and .approval a surface drainage/grading plan/erosion control plan, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of flow to adjacent streets. The plan is to include existing and proposed elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological feature? No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR and the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project,- the project site does not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any unique geologic feature. D. 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 ~~ 1 ~f • According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project, soil materials on .the project site consist of f-ill and native alluvial soils. The fill material generally consists of dark gray to black silty clays and clayey silts to depths of 31/2 feet to 6 feet. These soils have moderate expansion potential. Native alluvial soils were encountered at depths 18 to 45 feet below the surface and consisted primarily of soft dark gray to black silty clays. These soils were also considered to have moderate expansion potential. The moderate expansion potential of shallow soils would be considered a geotechnical concern. Additionally, the corrosion potential to buried steel is characterized as primarily severely corrosive when wet. This could affect buried utility lines and other support structures. To insure the geotechnical stability of the proposed project, Final geotechnical report with design recommendations shall be prepared. Mitigations Measures • A final design geotechnical report shall be prepared for • the proposed project to provide structure-specific geotechnical recommendations. The -final report shall address all issues initially covered in the Preliminary. Geotechnical Report prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project. Final recommendations.on earthwork, spread footings with slabs-on-grade, reinforced mat foundations, post-tensioned mats, friction piles, .cathedral retaining (basement) walls, and measures to address soil corrosion shall be ..identified. The final report shall specify foundation recommendations- 'to ensure issues associated with underlying soft, compressible clay soils are addressed. Construction of the project shall comply. with all recommendations in the final geotechnical report. 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? 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. 15 ~~ 1/~of 4~ Q • VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS r" A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous. emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact The operation of the proposed project would not involve activities that would emit hazardous emissions or involve the routine handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Construction operations associated with the proposed project could. involve incidental handling of hazardous. materials such as solvents, paints, gasoline and oil. However, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding the storage and handling of hazardous materials. Compliance with local,~state and federal laws and regulations would reduce the handling of hazardous materials to a level considered less than significant. 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 According to the EDR database, state and federal records and the' City Santa Ana Fire Department, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites. Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airports Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located 3~~$ `~9 • within an accident potential zone or clear zone. However, the project site located within a FAA Notification Area for John Wayne Airport. According to FAA criteria, obstructions to air navigation could occur if a structure is at least 500 feet high. Additionally, obstructions could occur if structures are 200 feet higher than the ground elevation of the of the runway and within 3 miles of the airport, 300 feet or more at 4 miles, 400 feet. or higher at 5 miles and 500 feet or higher at 6 miles or more. The project site is approximately 1.5 miles from John Wayne Airport. However, the height of the proposed project would not exceed the FAA height restriction criteria and would not pose a hazard to air navigation or to people working and residing within the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The primary source of potential adverse water quality impacts • associated with the operation of the proposed project would be from nuisance flows. Nuisance flows is defined as runoff that occurs during periods that are not usually associated with rainfall, and are most commonly produced from landscaping irrigation, leaking pipes, and water used to wash off surfaces tributary to the street. Since nuisance flows usually originates in the street, they commonly contain many common pollutants found in streets such as oil and grease and sediment. Such .impacts could potentially be in conflict with water quality standards established by the State Regional~Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, during construction operations surface water runoff could be degraded potentially resulting adverse water quality impacts to downstream receiving waters. As part of the City's NPDES requirements, the proposed project .would be required to incorporate Site Design and Treatment Control Best Management Practices into the site plan. To reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures • • Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide .proof of coverage under NPDES ' ~ ~~ lAof ~ 0 • - General construction Activity Storm Water Permit, which includes a copy of the project permit number and two copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall 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 (DAMP) and the City of Santa Ana Local Implementation Plan (LIP). • Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes the following: a. Site Assessment b. Site Design BMPs c. Applicable Routine Source Control BMPs d. Selection and sizing of the Treatment Control BMPs e. Mechanisms by funding for long-term operation and maintenance of all Structural BMPs will be provided. f. Operation and Maintenance Plan to describe the long-term. • operation and maintenance requirements of all applicable Structural BMPs and to identify the entity in charge of implementation. • The proposed project would be subject to City of Santa Ana. Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fees. 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. No Impact The proposed project would not interfere with ground water recharge because the project area is not located in an area that is known to recharge the ground water system. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any underground water supplies. 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? 18 ~~e/`1~f • 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project site is currently vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce additional impervious surfaces onto the project site. Existing rates of surface water runoff would increase. However, as part of the planning for Armstrong Ranch, a drainage plan was developed in accordance with the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Surface water flows from the project site would be directed to storm drain facilities along Alton Street and Raitt Street, ultimately directed Greenville Banning channel. Through the City's development review process, the Public Works Agency has determined that the drainage plan prepared for Armstrong Ranch would provide adequate drainage facilities for the proposed project. However, final, drainage plans would still need to be prepared to determine the size and exact location of onsite storm drain facilities. Mitigation Measure • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a final surface water runoff evaluation for review and approval showing existing and proposed facilities and methods of draining the site without exceedingthe capacity of any street or adjacent. storm drain facility. E. 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? F. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. 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? No Impact • The City of Santa Ana is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Communities participating in the NFIP must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards, 19 ~'~ ~/'"'~f .: _ including identification of flood hazards and flood risks. Participation in the NFIP allows communities to purchase low cost insurance protection against losses from flooding. The published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the project site are included on Community Panel No. 06059C0029F. The project site located entirely in Zone X, which is defined as areas beyond the limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the potential for flood risks. IX. LAND USE/PLANNING A. Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would be situated near a proposed Catholic Cathedral facility and could provide recreational facilities and activities for nearby residential areas. 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 proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and conditionally permitted under the SJ-4 Zoning Document. Implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any planning programs or policies in the City. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan? No Impact According to the City's General Plan, the project site is not. included within any habitat conservation plan or any natural community conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any habitat conservation plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES ~~ 3'~~~; • 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 Updated General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no areas in Santa Ana that are designated significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any regionally or locally important mineral resource. XI. NOISE 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. • Less Than Significant Impact • The project 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. The primary purpose of the City of Santa Ana Noise Element is to "Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and minimize the adverse effects of currently-existing noise sources." In accordance with the :element, the. City has adopted. noise standards and guidelines for land use planning. These guidelines for exterior noise levels as presented in Table 2. L1"1"i vr~ SANTA ANA L AND USE GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR NOISE Land Use Noise Level (dBA CNEL or Ldn) Desirable Maximum Maximum Acceptable Low Density Residential 55 65 Medium Density Residential 60 65 High Density Residential 65 ~0 Schools 60 ~0 Commercial, Office 65 '75 • Industrial 70 75 The City of Santa Ana does not a noise level standard specifically for community service centers. However, City sets a maximum desirable exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for schools, which would be considered a reasonably similar land use. The primary source of noise impacts for the proposed project would be vehicle traffic along Alton Avenue. According to the acoustical analysis prepared for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project, short-term and long-term noise levels along Alton Avenue within the vicinity of the project site would be approximately 63.0 CNEL. The proposed project would not subject to noise levels in excess of City standards. B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No Impact The proposed project would require conventional building practices and construction equipment. The project would not require pile driving or blasting. No adverse vibration impacts • would be associated with the construction or operation of 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 Construction activities associated with `the proposed project would result in short-term noise impacts. The City's Municipal Code recognizes that some forms of noise are required for urban development and maintenance and are difficult to control. Section 18-314 (e) exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. While adverse, construction, when: performed in compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code is considered to be less than significant. • 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 P~ 14~~ • expose people residing or working in the project area•to excessive noise levels.? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within an area that is subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people within the project area to significant aircraft noise impacts. 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? • No Impact Based on population Finance, there were in 2002. Presently, 4.65 persons. Imple~ increase population housing. estimates from the California Department of 343,700 residents in the City of Santa Ana the average household size in Santa Ana is nentation of the proposed project would not growth in the City or displace existing XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact The City of Santa Ana Fire Department would. provide fire protection and emergency services to the project area. The City maintains ten fire stations throughout the City. The stations are situated where no location in the `City is outside of an approximate 1.5 radius of a fire station. Additionally, the City maintains a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection services with the neighboring Cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Tustin, Irvine and Costa Mesa. According to the City of Santa • Ana Insurance Service Organization, the City has a low fire risk rating. 23 J 1 !1f 4~ V • According to the Santa Ana Fire Department, the goal of the~fire department is to have an onsite response time of 5:00 or less 80% of the time. Fire Station No. 6 located at 950 West MacArthur Boulevard is the closest fire station to the project site. Presently, a shift at Fire Station No. 5 consists of six fire fighters, 1 fire truck, and 1 fire engine. Additionally, Fire Station No. 9 at 1320 East Warner is also within the project area. The proposed project would result in an increased demand for fire protection and emergency services within the project area. The Santa Ana Fire Department has indicated that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, it does not anticipate any significant constraints in providing adequate fire protection services to the proposed project. The existing fire stations in the project area would be able to adequately respond to project- related demand for fire and emergency services. Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impact The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The Police Department is • headquartered at 60 Civic Center Plaza. The City of Santa Ana is subdivided into four policing districts, with each district serving a section of the-City. The proposed project is located within Reporting District 190 within the Southeast District. The Reporting District is considered to be an average crime area, compared to other areas in the City. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for police protection services. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services. School Facilities: No Impact The project site is within. the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). Implementation of the proposed project would not generate additional students within the Santa Ana Unified School. District. • • Parks: Less Than Significant Impact r 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, additional parkland is needed to meet the park needs of the community. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the amount of public parkland in the City. However, the proposed project would provide additional recreational facilities to help reduce the demands for 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 mentioned above, the proposed project would increase the amount of recreational facilities within the City and would help reduce the demand for existing recreation facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 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? A. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the • Less Than Significant 2~ ~ 1 ~~f~V • As part of the planning program for Armstrong Ranch Development Project, a number of roadway improvements have been required to improve the circulation system around Armstrong Ranch and the proposed project. To facilitate access to the proposed project traffic signals would be provided Raitt Street at Alton Avenue and Bear Street at Alton Avenue. Additionally, Alton Avenue would be widened from two lanes to four lanes. The proposed project was analyzed as cumulative project in the traffic analysis prepared for Armstrong Ranch. Based on trip generation rates. in the traffic analysis, the proposed project would generate 732 vehicle trips per day with 42 trips per day occurring in Am Peak Hour and 56 trips per day occurring in the PM Peak Hour. The traffic report for Armstrong Ranch determined that the full- built of the Armstrong Ranch Development including the proposed project in conjunction with the implementation of roadway improvements identified in the traffic report, would not cause any roadway segments or intersections within the project area to operate at acceptable levels of service. To help fund regional and area-wide transportation improvements, the proposed project would be subject Transportation System Improvement fees and San Joaquin Hills Corridor 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? Less Than Significant Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the level of the level of air traffic within the project area or create a conflict for air navigation. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature Less Than Significant Impact The circulation system developed for Armstrong Ranch considered access to the proposed project. As mention previously a number of circulation improvements would occur within the project area. to ensure safe and efficient access to the proposed project. E. Result in inadequate emergency access • No Impact 2 v ~a~~BbT~ ~/ • As part of the City's development review process, emergency access was evaluated by the Santa Ana Fire Department. The Fire Department determined that the proposed project did not provide any constraints for adequate emergency access. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity Less Than Significant Impact A total of 203 parking stalls However, a total of 116 would standard, a minor exception w. project to share parking with the east. G. Conflict with adopted transportation are required for the project. be provided. To meet the parking Auld be required to allow the the future Catholic Cathedral to policies supporting alternative Less Than Significant Impact The Orange County Transportation Authority operates a fixed • route bus service when the project area. Metrolink and Amtrak Train Service would also be .available through bus service to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. The proposed project would not be in conflict with any City policies regarding alternative modes of transportation. Nor would implementation of the proposed project displace any existing modes of public transportation provided within the project area. XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The City of Santa Ana Water Department would provide domestic water service for the proposed project. The City of Santa Ana produces water from two sources. The Orange County Groundwater Basin provides 66% of the annual water supply and the Metropolitan Water District provides 34% of the annual water supply. The City of Santa Ana has 19 active wells with combined • capacities of approximately 42,500 gallons per minute. The City also has seven MWD connections with combined normal operating capacities of 20,700 gallons per minute. The total combined • _ capacity of all water production facilities is 63,200 gallons per minute. According to the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, the projected water demand for the City in 2003 and 2004 would be approximately 51,000 acre feet per year. According to the City's Water Department the current demand is less than the project demand at approximately 48,000 acre feet per year. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The water demands for the project are accounted for in the City's Urban Water Management Plan. The Santa Ana Water Department has indicated that they would have sufficient water supplies and capacity to service the project. The project area includes a number of existing and water distribution facilities to serve Armstrong Ranch. The project site is currently vacant and would have to construct onsite water distribution facilities. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure adequate water service. Mitigation Measure • Prior to the issuance of grading permits. The project • applicant shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana Water Department regarding the depths, locations and sizes of proposed water distribution facilities. • Water conservation measures recommended by the State Department of Water Resources and applicable state laws requiring the use of water-efficient plumbing fixtures and recommendations for low-water-using landscape shall be incorporated-into the project design as appropriate. A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? C. 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 ~,q ~1~~4-~41 • _ The project site lies within the. jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The proposed project would connect to OCSD 30-inch sewer line located along Raitt Street. The design capacity of the sewer line along Raitt Street is 9.04 million gallons per day. The sewer line along Raitt Street would then connect to an 84-inch line located on Sunflower, ultimately connecting to OCSD Treatment Plant 1 located in the City of Fountain Valley. Treatment Plant 1 treats approximately 90 million gallons per day. According to OCSD .there are no deficiencies in existing facilities. The wastewater flows generated from the proposed project would provide an incidental increase in the amount of wastewater flows to the fountain valley treatment plant and would not have a significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. To help reduce cumulative impacts to district/City sewer facilities, the. proposed project would be subject OCSD sewer connection fees and City of Santa Ana sewer connection fees. • • C. Require or result in the construction of new drainage facilities or expansion of existing the construction of which could cause environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact storm water facilities, significant Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of surface water runoff currently generated from the project site. However, the drainage facilities provided for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project in conjunction with project site drainage facilities would provide adequate drainage for the 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 The City of Santa Ana would services to the project site. Sunset Transfer station in Bowerman Landfill. The Sunset accept 2,700 tons per day. The accept 8,500 tons per day and ~~ provide solid waste Collection Solid waste is transported to the Irvine, and then. taken to the Transfer Station is permitted to Bowerman Landfill is permitted to is anticipated to close in year J' 13~~~t • ~ . 2024. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept 8,500 tons per day and is anticipated to close in year 2024. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates all cities and counties in California to divert fifty percent of solid waste generated from landfill disposal. As part of the General Plan, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which describe how the City complies with the mandates of AB 939. In order to comply with the requirements of AB 939, the City has implemented. several waste reduction programs including green waste programs, source reduction programs, and recycling programs. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, a standard generation rate for institutional uses would be .0013 tons per year per square foot. The proposed project would have a solid waste disposal demand of .115 tons per day. The increase in solid waste would be considered minor in comparison to the 2,700 tons of solid waste taken to the transfer station daily. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City's recycling program for residential uses to reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Compliance with the City's • recycling program would reduce long-term solid waste disposal service impacts to a level considered less than significant. 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. Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, in that no fish or wildlife populations are known to exist on the project site. Additionally, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to a level considered less than significant. • B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? 3U ~~e~F~`T3 Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts to the environment. However, the proposed project's incremental contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the uniform building code, conditions. of approval and mitigation measures, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. Furthermore, the. incremental impacts associated with the proposed project would be at a level where there would not be considered cumulatively considerable. C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact Construction and operation of the proposed project would not • involve any activities that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to the environment to a level considered less than significant. 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. XVIV REFERENCES City of Santa Ana Updated General Plan Land Use Element February 1998. City of Santa Ana Updated General Plan Land Use Element Environmental Impact, January, 1998, SCH 97071058 • City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 City of Santa Ana Urban Design Element, July 6, 1998 P3~~544 • ~ .: City Santa Ana Local Register of Historic Structures City Santa Ana National Register of Historic Structures Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 06059C0029F City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee, October 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 California Environmental Quality .Act Statues and Guidelines, January 1999 Site Visit by Dan Bott Environmental Coordinator, October 2003 California Integrated Waste Management Website City of Santa Ana 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Armstrong Ranch Development Project Final EIR, October 2002 • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Armstrong Ranch Development Project, Lowney Associates, June 2002 Traffic Study Armstrong Ranch Development Project, KAKU Associates, June 2002 Archeological Survey Armstrong ranch Development Project, Greenwood Associates, October 2001 Paleontologic Resource Inventory/impact Assessment, Paleo Environmental Associates, June 2001 XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, City of Santa Ana Environmental Coordinator • • • For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Armstrong Ranch YMCA Facility 11. Project Numbers: ER 2003-233 Environmental Checklist III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bott (714) 667-2719 V. Location: 2100 West Alton Avenue VI. Environmental Determination On the basis of this Initial evaluation, I find that: A. ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. ~ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -)pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. ^ Pursuant to Section 15164 of the-CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier and -only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. ^ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier, however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant o previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. ~ ~-~.- ~ 3 ature Date ri d Name r;d\rrswGrd\~nvcheck.dx.\ i-.'S.9~ 3~A°f~6 Y ~~`G ': Gi i Environmental Cheo~list For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on .project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). It. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,. including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant impact'. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to • a less than significant level. Issues & Supporting Information Sources I. Aesthetics -Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ (~ ~ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited ^ ^ f~ ^ to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings J`~ within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character `/ or quality of the site and its surroundings? ^ ^ p'4 ^ D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare fff "'~~~ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ^ ^ ^ md\msword\envcheck.doc\1.'15.99 'J Page 1 of 10 ~~~'~~ t i " ;~ Environmental Che~l~list For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia 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 ^ ^ ^ r-~ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to y~' 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. Conflic# 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? Air Quality -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or 111. pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict ..with or obstruct implementation of ^ - ^ ^ r~'(~ applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan orCongestion }`1' Management Plan? . B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or ^ ~ ^ ^ contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ^ ^ (~ ^ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region 7'"t is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceed .quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ (~ ^ concentrations? f"` • md\msword\envcheck.doc11.15.99 Page 2 of 10 3~g'4~8 6 • • • l 1 "'~ Environmental Che~~list For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Issues >3< Supporting Information Sources Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact 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 throu h h bit t dif ti ^ ^ ^ ~j 77``~~ g a a mo ica ons, 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, Tt coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ . protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? V. Cultural Resources -Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ~ ^ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ]~ B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ® ^ ^ significance of a unique archaeological resource TTTjjj pursuant to define Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique ^ ~ ^ ^ paleontogical resource or site? md\mswordlenvcheck.doc11.15.99 Page 3 of 10 ~~~of~ • • t i " '~ Environmental Checklist ~, For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vl. 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? mdlmswordlenvcheck.doc\1.15.99 Page 39 of 45 31 A-50 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ o ~' ^ ^ ~( ^ ^ ^ ,~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~' o ,~' ^ ° ° ° ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~f Page 4 of 10 l 1 " '; Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ~ 'C disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ^ ^ ~ ^ acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter "mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of ^ ^ ^ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a . result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ ^ ~ ^ or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water ^ [~ ^ ^ quality standards or waste discharge jT 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)? • mdlmswordlenvcheck.doc11.15.99 3P~i~°=~51 Page 5 of 10 a • t i "'~~ Environmental Cheol~tist >> For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? E. 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? F. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. 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? 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? o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ,(~ o ,~' o ,~i ,~ o ^ ~ o ^ ^ ^ ~' ^ ^ ^ ~( mdlmsword\envcheck.doc\1.15.99 Page 6 of 10 1 /'1'~~ • • i 1 " ; Environmental Cheo~list For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact XI. Noise -Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ^ ^ (~ ^ " levels in excess of standards established in the f ~ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ^ y~ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? `"~ C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ~ ^ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ^ ~ ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? E. For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ ^ \p( ^ or where such a plan has not been adopted, within J'~ 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? md\mswordlenvcheck.doc\1.15.99 Page 7 of 10 ~~f ~°f 33 v ~: l i " '~~ Environmental Cheo~list 1 1 For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8 Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse ^ ^ ^ ^ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? ^ ^ ~ ^ Police protection? ^ ^ ~ ^ Schools? ^ ^ ^ ~" _ -'\ Parks? ^ ^ ~ ^ Other public facilities? ^ ^ ~ ^ XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing ^ ^ ~ ^ neighborhood and regional parks ~ or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. B. Does the project include recreational facilities or ^ ^ [AJ ^ require the construction or expansion of 77T--'~ recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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 (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) mdlmsword\envcheck.doc\1.15.99 Page 8 of 10 A ~a~43~~ .. • t t " '~~ Environmental Che~~list For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ^ ^ ~ ^ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ~ ^ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ^ ^ ~ ^ (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ~ ^ F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ~ ^ G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ^ ^ ~ ^ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E. Result in the determination by the wastewater • treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? mdlmswordlenvcheck.doc11.15.99 31~~4~~ ^ ^ ~' ^ ^ ^ ,~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~' ^ ^ ^ ^ ~' ^ Page 9 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Im pa ct No Impact F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ` /~ 6V "'"' ^ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's CCC ~~~ 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? • mdUnsword\envcheck.doc\1.15.99 Page 10 of 10 P~~4~pf 45 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-42 KO - 12/4/07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-12 TO ALLOW A RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 4 (SD-4) ZONING DISTRICT AND MINOR EXCEPTION 2006-04 FOR PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 WEST ALTON AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant, the YMCA located at 2100 West Alton Avenue has filed Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 seeking to allow a recreational facility in Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) Zoning District, and has filed Minor Exception 2006-04 seeking to allow the YMCA to share parking with the future Christ Our Savior Cathedral Parish. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on December 10, 2007 on Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 and Minor Exception No. 2006-04. C. The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006- 12 to allow a recreational facility in Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) Zoning District for the property located at 2100 West Alton Avenue. 1. Specific Development No. 4 (SD-4) allows recreational facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 2. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. i. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community? The proposed YMCA facility will provide much needed recreational programs to an area of the City that is currently under served by similar providers. The construction of the facility near schools and residential neighborhoods will allow both children and adults the opportunity to walk to this location and obtain after school care and other recreational services. Resolution No. 2007-42 Page 1 of 11 31 A-57 ii. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health or safety of persons living or working in the area, as one of the goals of the YMCA is to provide programs that benefit the overall health and welfare of persons living and working in the neighborhood. Additionally, the building has been architecturally designed to be compatible with the surrounding low-density residential development. iii. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area. The economic viability of the area will increase due to the new construction in the area. iv. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The YMCA facility will be in compliance with the regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code as well as the provisions found within the Specific Development No. 4 zoning district. v. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The proposed community service center will not adversely affect the General Plan, as the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Low-Density Residential (LR7) General Plan designation D. Minor Exception 2006-04 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the YMCA to share parking with the future Christ Our Savior Cathedral Parish. 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638.1 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a minor exception upon making certain findings. Will the uses on the premises of the new Catholic Church provide no conflict between parking for one use and parking Resolution No. 2007-42 Page 2 of 11 31 A-58 for another use due to differences in time between the primary utilization of parking as between such uses? As conditioned, the YMCA building will only be utilized when the Cathedral Parish, the highest parking generator on the site, is not being utilized. This is consistent with the proposed operation plan of the new parish. Will the effect of granting the exception substantially increase difficulties of vehicular maneuverability or traffic congestion? As conditioned and designed, the on and off-site circulation will not be impacted by the granting of shared parking between the on-site uses of the property. E. After completion of Environmental Review No. 03-233, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was filed and adopted by the Planning Commission on January 4, 2004 for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby, approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein and approves Minor Exception 2006-04 as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Gartner, Leo, Mill, Munoz (5) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Alderete, De La Torre (2) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Christopher Leo Chairman Resolution No. 2007-42 Page 3 of 11 31 A-59 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Deputy City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-42 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on December 10, 2007. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007-42 Page 4 of 11 31 A-60