Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-025 - Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02• KO- 4/28/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2004-02 AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-08 AS CONDITIONED FOR A HOTEL AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2009-02 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 EAST MACARTHUR PLACE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, a conditional use permit, an amendment to a development agreement and a variance to allow the construction of a new hotel within the MacArthur Place South development at 6 East MacArthur Place. • B. On April 13, 2009, the Planning Commission Chairperson declared an impasse after a series of motions failed to achieve a majority vote. The Applicant has requested the items be denied by the Planning Commission to allow them to move forward to the City Council for a final decision. The items before the Planning Commission were as follows: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approve the mitigation monitoring program. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2009-04. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving the Amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005-02. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-08 as conditioned. 5. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2009-02 as conditioned. C. On May 4, 2009 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana continued the matter to May 18, 2009. On May 18, 2009 the City Council of the City of • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 1 of 95 Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-08 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the construction of a hotel at 6 East MacArthur Place. Pursuant to SD-76, hotel uses are permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. i. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community? The proposed use will provide an additional service to the community by providing ahigh-quality business hotel that will offer a variety of amenities including 3,000 square feet of conference room/meeting space, media area, lounge, cafe, pool and spa to it guests. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure the quality and the attractiveness of the overall design which will contribute to the general well being of the community. 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 hotel use in conjunction with the rest of the MacArthur Place South development will not be detrimental to persons residing and working in the area. Any effect relating to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity have been addressed through various mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 2004-02. These mitigation measures cover all aspects of the hotel from construction to daily operation and include mitigation measures relating to construction noise and soil retention to the permitted hours of operation for material deliveries and pick-ups. iii. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 2 of 95 • The proposed hotel use will not adversely affect the economic stability within the MacArthur Place South development area. The 185-room hotel and 3,000 square foot conference/meeting rooms will provide a diverse customer base for adjacent retail and restaurant uses which will reinforce the economic viability of the project area. iv. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The project will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code as well as the provisions of the SD-76 zoning district with the exception of parking. A variance will be required to deviate from this standard. v. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan as hotel uses are conditionally permitted within the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning • district. The General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 encourages commercial development to accommodate the City's need for goods and services. A hotel use with conference and meeting rooms provides a needed service within the City. Also Policy 2.6 encourages the creation of new employment opportunities which are compatible with surrounding land uses, and provide a net community benefit. A hotel use at this location will provide a sizable amount of diverse employment opportunities while remaining compatible with surrounding development. E. Applicant has requested approval of Variance No. 2009-02 to reduce the required parking. Based on code requirement, a total of 204 parking spaces are required for the hotel use while only 183 spaces are available. Of these 183 spaces, there is an agreement to use 25 of the parking spaces as overflow parking. As a result of this agreement, the effective parking deficit for the proposed hotel is 46 spaces. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 3 of 95 That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The MacArthur Place South site is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial and residential developments. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Fehr & Peers has determined that sufficient parking will be provided for the project during times of peak demand. The parking variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is consistent with similar surrounding commercial, residential and professional uses. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance to allow reduction in parking requirement will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a high quality hotel that is consistent with the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district. The shared parking analysis, prepared by Fehr & Peers has determined that sufficient parking will be provided on site in a combination of surface and structured parking during times of peak demand. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance to allow reduction in parking requirement will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Conditions have been added requiring the submittal of a parking management plan for the surface parking lot relating to the use of tandem valet parking spaces. A separate condition has been added to requiring valet service on a 24-hour basis for hotel guests. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 4 of 95 • The granting of the variance to allow reduction in parking requirement will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City since the proposed hotel was designed in conformance with City Zoning, Development, and General Plan requirements except for the parking requirements. The General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 encourages commercial development to accommodate the City's need for goods and services. A hotel use with conference and meeting rooms provides a needed service within the City. Also Policy 2.6 encourages the creation of new employment opportunities which are compatible with surrounding land uses, and provide a net community benefit. A hotel use at this location will provide a sizable amount of diverse employment opportunities while remaining compatible with surrounding development. Section 2. On June 20, 2005 the City Council approved and adopted Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and the mitigation monitoring program was prepared for this project. Based upon the studies, the City Council determines that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the • severity of the impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report. The City Councll hereby approves the Addendum to the Flnal Envlronmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approves the mitigation monitoring program, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby approves: A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-08 as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein for the hotel located at 6 East Mac Arthur Place. B. Variance No. 2009-02 as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces for the property located at 6 East Mac Arthur Place. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated May 4, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral; and the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations was approved and adopted by resolution by the City Council on June 20, 2005 all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 5 of 95 Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS-2785 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 5. Applicant has requested the approval of the above entitlements which are incompatible with previously granted entitlements. As such, any and all previously approved entitlements, including but not limited to parking variances and conditional use permits, to build or operate the 13,470 square foot retail/restaurant building and the six- story office/residential (15-unit) loft building on the Cinema site, are hereby null and void and of no further force and effect. Section 6. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. . ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2009 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney r. ,~ ~~ By. ~ ~ ', Ky~&;e O. `Otto Assistant City Att~irney AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ayor Alvarez. Benavides. Bustamante. Martinez Pulido, Sarmiento, Tinajero (7) None (0) None (0) None (0) Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 6 of 95 • C~ CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009-025 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on May 18, 2009 _~___~ Date: / ~ ~ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 7 of 95 State Clearinghouse No.: 2004061140 Draft EIR (Distributed): March 4, 2005 Final EIR (Certified On): June 20, 2005 ,. ~ , ~~ , ~ y,~,_ ~,~_,.~~, ~ Y x R ~ _ /~"'~~ ~ 1n,,1 ~~~ rte'? ~. +. ! ~1~ ~ V 1' i ~] ~ it I d, .. - ~ 7 _r ~ H ~~._~ w~1I, ~1`, ~ „., ^ ~ Mtn 3 I/ ~nh'r"'~ 's 9 _7 Y ~ h y n , ~, i ` ~`~ ~~ n ~~ Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 MacArthur Place South ~_~: Qducadon tar City of Santa Ana March 2009 Prepared for: Lead Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92702 Contact Person: Vince Fregoso Principal Planner Planning Division (714)667-2713 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 8 of 95 Prepared by: CAA Planning 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, Califomia 92656 Contact Person: Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer (949)581-2888 EXHIBIT A • State Clearinghouse No.: 2004061140 Draft EIR (Distributed): March 4, 2005 Final EIR (Certified On): June 20, 2005 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... l A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 B. Environmental Impact Report Addendum ................................................................................. 1 C. Statutory Requirements .............................................................................................................1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................5 A. Location .....................................................................................................................................5 B. Background ............................................................................................................................... 5 C. Description of Proposed Project ..............................................................................................15 D. Approvals Contemplated .........................................................................................................23 Environmental Analysis ..............................................................................................................................25 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Inventory of Applicable Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 54 Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................................57 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Regional Map ............................................................................................................................. 7 • Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3 - Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2005 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... .9 11 Exhibit 4 - 2005 Cinema Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 13 Exhibit 5 -Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................17 Exhibit 6 -Proposed Cinema Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 19 Exhibit 7 -Ground Floor Plan ....................................................................................................................21 Exhibit 8 -North and South Hotel Elevations ............................................................................................ 27 Exhibit 9 -East and West Hotel Elevations ............................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 10 -Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A -MacArthur Place Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation, April 1, 2009 • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 9 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum iii Introduction A. Executive Summary The Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the MacArthur Place South project was certified on June 20, 2005. The project is a mixed use development consisting of three 25-story residential towers, three low rise condominium buildings, asix-story residential/office building with 10,000 square feet of office and 15 residential loft units, and asingle-story 13,871 square-foot retail building consisting of 8,580 square feet of restaurant and 5,290 square feet of retail. The project site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street in southeast Santa Ana. East of the site is the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), south and east of the site is the City of Irvine and the City of Costa Mesa is located to the southwest. John Wayne Airport is approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. This document constitutes the Addendum to the Final EIR for the Mac Arthur Place South project, SCH #200406 1 1 40, as certified by the City of Santa Ana. The Addendum reviews the environmental impacts identified in the EIR in relation to changes to the project since the EIR was certified. These include the elimination of the Cinema Lofts (comprised of 15 residential units and 10,000 square feet of office use), removal of 13,871 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, the addition of a 185 room hotel, moving the Cinema Tower south of its approved location and the eventual construction of a parking structure for joint use by the hotel and Cinema Tower. An Initial Study Checklist, pursuant to CEQA, is included herein. The Initial Study and the Addendum fully comply with all relevant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards to determine if the EIR remains adequate to address the impacts resulting from the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164. B. Environmental Impact Report Addendum Pursuant to §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for this project. As defined, the lead agency has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Addendum updates the progress made in the project, as certified, and serves to update the information in the EIR as contemplated in CEQA Guidelines § 15164. This document will also be used to acknowledge the addition of mitigation measures and further project modifications to the site. The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.) authorize the use of an Addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these changes do not rise to the level of requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162. CEQA Guidelines § 15164 states: a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. C. Statutory Requirements Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) sets the standard to determine whether another EIR should be prepared when an original EIR has been prepared. Section 21166 states: Resolution No. 2009-025 IBt~R~wfP9~ace South EIR Addendum 1 • When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. Section 21166 is further explained in the CEQA Guidelines at § 15162 as follows: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following. (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement • of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 11 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 2 (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. The key to §21166 and §15162 is to determine if any circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the environmental documentation process. If conditions do not justify a new or supplemental EIR, but minor additional or technical changes (such as traffic updates, additional mitigation measures, or project improvements) are appropriate to keep the document current and useful, an agency may prepare an Addendum (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). This Addendum will document the character of any changes or additions to support the determination to prepare an Addendum. It will also provide an opportunity to evaluate all components of § 15162 to determine if the EIR still reflects the full scope of the environmental impact. Where appropriate, citations to the EIR will be made, and assumptions made in the EIR will be evaluated for continuing validity. As described in this Addendum, there are no new significant impacts or any increase in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the EIR. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which require major revisions of the previous EIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA § 15164, this Addendum to the previously certified MacArthur Place South EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the action proposed herein. The §21166 test is the prevailing authority under state law on the question of whether a new environmental document is necessary. This test is a substantive one to determine the document's continuing accuracy and utility. No substantial changes are proposed in the project, no substantial changes in the circumstances for implementation of the project and no new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified has become available. Therefore, the EIR, as certified, remains adequate and complete. Resolution No. 2009-025 IBl~it~~afl~ce South EIR Addendum MacArthur Place South Project Approvals • The MacArthur Place South project required the following review and discretionary approvals as described in the EIR: • Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report • Zone change to Specific Development (SD) zone • Site plan review • Lot line adjustment • Tentative/Final Tract Maps • Conditional Use Permit • Parking variance • Airport Land Use Commission consistency finding • Development Agreement • Federal Aviation Administration determination for construction cranes • Regional Water Quality Control Board approval for dewatering activities No change in the required approvals is proposed. This Addendum identifies the requirement for the future submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an updated Determination of No Hazard for the Cinema Tower construction. However, no construction schedule for the Cinema Tower has been established as of the date of this Addendum. • • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 13 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 4 Project Description The following project description is based on information in the MacArthur Place South Environmental Impact Report. Modifications to the project are included in this Addendum to update the project as proposed. A. Location MacArthur Place South is a partially developed residential and office park located in the City of Santa Ana, in the County of Orange, California, immediately west of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) and approximately three-quarters mile north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405). The City of Irvine is located south and east of the site. The City of Costa Mesa is located to the southwest. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 1.1 miles south. A Regional Map and a Project Vicinity Map are included herein as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively. The project lies within the boundaries of MacArthur Boulevard, Main Street, Sandpointe Avenue, and the Costa Mesa Freeway. MacArthur Place and Hutton Center Drive bisect the site. MacArthur Place runs south from MacArthur Boulevard to Sandpointe Avenue, and Hutton Centre runs from Sandpointe Avenue around to MacArthur Place. Some maps identify the entire street as Hutton Centre Drive. The project site is approximately 10 acres and is surrounded by high-rise office buildings, a hotel, and parking structures. To the west, between Sunflower Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, are the Sandpointe single-family neighborhood, the Main Attraction condominiums and an existing Mobil service station. North of MacArthur Boulevard along Main Street is an existing Arco service station and the California Apartments. Immediately north of the MacArthur Place South project is the MacArthur Place mixed use development. B. Background The MacArthur Place South EIR identified the project area as an existing office park formerly known as Hutton Centre. Since 1982, approximately 1,551,096 square feet of office, restaurant, theater, retail, and hotel land uses have been developed in Hutton Centre. The structures range from single- story buildings to office towers ranging in height from 8 to 14 stories. In 2001 the City approved a 162-room hotel and health club for Hutton Centre, which did not move forward. The entitlement for the hotel and the health club were relinquished to implement the MacArthur Place South project. The MacArthur Place South EIR included analysis of the following project components: • Three 25-story residential towers, with a total of 501 residential units • One low-rise loft building with 14 residential units and 10,000 square feet of office space • A condominium complex including three low-rise buildings, with a total of 276 residential units • A restaurant and retail building totaling 13,871 square feet Resolution No. 2009-025 IBt~R#~u~f~ace South EIR Addendum 5 • The entire MacArthur Place South project layout, as originally approved, is included herein as Exhibit 3 - 2005 Site Plan. A detailed layout of the Cinema Tower, the Cinema Lofts, and retail/restaurant portion of the original plan is shown in Exhibit 4 - 2005 Cinema Site Plan. Lake Towers The 25-story Lake Towers buildings, now known as Skyline at MacArthur Place, are situated along the west side of a man-made lake within the Hutton Centre complex. The North Tower includes 173 residential units, and the South Tower includes 174 residential units. The towers are approximately 257'6" in height, including parking facilities, mechanical equipment, and rooftop appurtenances. Two levels of subterranean parking and two levels of above ground parking are provided that include a total of 735 parking stalls. Residential unit types include one-bedroom plus den, two-bedroom, and two-bedroom plus den. A central amenity deck is provided between the towers and is accessible from the third floor of each tower. The amenity deck includes a lap pool, a lounge pool, a spa pool, a sundeck with private cabanas, a barbeque and picnic area, and an outdoor terrace. A water feature extends from the pool and bisects the amenity deck. A ladies' spa and fitness room are located in the north tower and a men's spa and lounge billiards/game room are in the south tower. Cinema Tower The Cinema Tower will be located west of Hutton Centre Drive. The approved tower will be 260' tall, including mechanical equipment and rooftop appurtenances, and will include 154 residential units. Parking will include one level of subterranean parking, which will be located under the entirety of the Cinema Tower, the Cinema Lofts, and the retaiUrestaurant portion of the site, with a total of 316 parking spaces. An additional 128 surface parking stalls will be provided surrounding the • Cinema Tower, the Cinema Lofts, and the retail/restaurant components. Four residential unit types will be provided in the Cinema Tower including one-bedroom units, one-bedroom plus den units, two-bedroom units, and two-bedroom plus den units. Cinema Lofts The Cinema Lofts will be between 5 and 6 stories, with the highest point reaching 60 feet. The Cinema Lofts will contain 14 residential units and 10,000 square feet of office above the residential space and will include a spa on the third floor and a gym on the fourth floor. An amenity deck will be located on the third floor and will serve the residents of the Cinema Tower and the Cinema Lofts. A pedestrian bridge will connect the Cinema Tower to the Cinema Lofts and provide access to the amenity deck, which will include a pool and an outdoor terrace. Retail/Restaurant The retail/restaurant component, situated along the northern project boundary, will include three retail spaces with a total of 5,291 square feet and two restaurant spaces with 8,580 square feet. Parking will be provided on the adjacent surface lot. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 15 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 6 LOS ANGELES r COUNTY 1 1, 1 ~~~~`` SAN BERNARDINO `` COUNTY .~ ,~~ ~r Riverside p Fre ORANGE T /1 • ~N7 ; ~d a Garden Grove Freeway TUSTIN '97d ~ sd7 SANTA ANA • COSTA MESA • A ~ C 'Q NEWPORT ~~ BEACH ~~ c 0 2 J~_' AlIAP NOT TO SCALE BEACH RIVERSIDE COUNTY d8° C d ~i 1 ° 0 P ~ T ~~~~ `~ °O"'r'r ORANGE OREST P°~ C O U N T Y • / 0 't°~ RANCHO SANTA ~ MARGARITA MISSION Sd % ~ A VIEJO ° • ~ LAGUNA a ~ 1 NIGUEL ~ ~ .. ~ ; 3i. Orre9a ; 1 i 1 • SAN JUAN ~ • CAPISTRANO ~ / _ i ' SAN DIEGO POINT ~ ~ COUNTY sAN , CLEMENTE Ii Exhibit 1 -Regional Map Resolution No. 2009-025 IBC~Rfi~afl~lace South EIR Addendum 7 • • (Y c CpSTIE W W N Q ~ 3 ~Y I ~, E,ylg B 3 EE rr Q GARR~ > ~ AP~ ~-+ B ~ ~ ~~ ~ raoA ~ w ~~ d ai ~ AALt (n z~ _ J J -- -- Q ---.. _ - ~ prr G o AV ~` ~ AV y ~ y ~ 300 a 600 c ~ G ~Y i Lrclrf ~~ ~~ AY ~ V z ~ ~ ~ G o ¢ ~ o~~ AU INT P~ sl Aaa P P AV ~ ~P ~'~ F S q q !~ C~~U E s~ `o NE AV gel S ~ R ART t M r CURIE AV V N -, ~ ~• MAC ~ ~ h~ ~ ti o ~ N BELL AV h rANER[GW WY j~p 6 LV[.~ E MA ~HOR ~ ~' AV .AMl7EP AY ,~ AY ~ ~e ~ o dnaN ~ ~ ON E _ ~' ~. ~v ~~' a ~ ~ !oN '~s Av ~ t ~ ti ~ l F Q ti g s Po~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AY ' urrv i ~ q` AV AUR AV KELLER AV ~ ~ N AV n ~ ~ h `- g - a ~.C~% ~L ~ ~ ~ N ~ AOIGd4LfTRff M7TEL sros vs ~p v~ ~S Q . I • ^~ r STEVENS AV ~ A rv sTEVENS ~ • AV •".. C~ ~ °` S U F W AV ~ ~~., lnoo ~ afr ~,~ 500 SEE C D5 h` ~ ' ~~' c ~, ~~ j~~o ~ o FS 1 SC!#NLEY BAY 2 KITTENOALE BAY 3 LANGS BAY ~ ITCH 17800 ~ ~ _ ~ ~c ^ ` 4 NESLEYAN BAY ; , o s sf p ARK ~ C I R Btu a'~ ~~ i , ~ 1~ ~° h CC SKY `~ ; ~ PARK ^ i ;~ ~ 1 ~'~ ~g~S S,~ ~ 17700 -' 86 ~~ ~~ :~ ~°J cur 9A ~,~ rm / ~ l~j y ~ K C. ~~ ~ /~/ J ~ ~ f 17 s •~ Qo~ F ~ j~f ~ zo ~ S ~~ ~ ~ q fRAO~~ A~ Q°~' '' 3;~~,~ JOHN WAY E J P ~ AIRPORT IN qv ,~~`' q ~ q° ~"~`~ 11 ~, ~ 9 o rC O 1 ~ ^ COLLE ~~ ~ ®2004 Thomas Bro s. Maps Exhibit 2 -Project Vicinity Map MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 17 of 95 m~ m a~i m c a~ c ~ 3 ~ 0 c II n~ ~O On m~ z ti ~ ~ y _ f~ __- T_ t _ I ,Ilh~l~ ~ ~YI i,llflli I~,~ "r~ GX3 ClJ~ £'C1 tt~ '_Y~ r ^j ~ , I = `. 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ /~ LX> Od -~ `r.-. llllllll~L~ ~" W N ~I ~ ~~ ~\ .~ J ~ \ ~ \ \ 1' I ~ 1 ~' . 1 1 C> ~ >'- ~ \' ~~~•^~ ~:~~~, ~ - ~. 1+ 1 i ~. .~ ----- =~.a ~ a '~~ /~ ~i O VI N 'r N d 7 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 18 of 95 m~ m D~ _ a m c n~ c ~ 3 ~ 0 c l~ u X S Q IV O O n ~o v_+ • ~ m v W °i 7 >_a P ._ ~ , -~---- S ~'"' ~--- ...., . _ _ ~ , __ - ~, , , ~_ ~ , ~ ~. - .~;.. l~ ~ / 1.7 m n r I ~~ ~., ,. ~fA ~~_.... - _ "ITT' ,::, o ,, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ®~ - - i , i ~ . ~ w . _ _.. I } ` 1 ~~ ~ ', A ~ m n pc. D r;l -y MACARTHUR BLVD. ~,~; i '~ L ~ - . ~ ,. n ~ .~ '~~ ~.~~~ s ~~ ~,,~ ,, ~\ _ ~ , . t~ ,'~~ ~, ,a ~'~ ~ ;. HUTTON CENTRE J ': r ~ LOOP ~' f, ~., ~. --- . -- I: ~,, ~ ~ _ _i 1... , ~ " ', . r~ , i i ~ I '• ~ 1 ;~ I ~., ., ~ 1~ ~~ ~-~ r ' . ~ ~ - ~ I . b t ~ l 2, ~ 2 Ll ~ ~ ! i = ~ ~ ', ~. 1 ~ l~ 1 /~ o ~ ~ OZ m A c ~ z ~. ~ i i ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., -,- c - ~ ~ m ,w i A~ I` ~. r~ I ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ _ , ~ , ;. ''~ ~ i A ~ ~ I ~ ll ~ ~ 1 ~_ ~ ~ ~ . _....._ _. _.i - uu n - l/ ~~:, ~` i t T I - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, } B~ °~ t@@ R45 !! ~ ~ 'F({ ~ ~ Se g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~~ss r ~ [~~3p°p f 3 k ~ gg- ik C ~~ I~°~~ t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ¢ `' , °S f{{ 1 < E' ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~~ 11 ~1 gF d+ i~ !g ~ r ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ {{ !4 ~ 1 jE d ~ ~ yy ~ 7 ; ~ d i~ ~0i, p ~ fY €' ~ ~ t~. 1 g i ~ 7 ~ "~ ~ ! p ! f y~y ~~ i 'y~ ~` S ~' ~4 a~ 1 @ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~E el t { ~ 7 ~ e B 7 - ;`p ~V 6 5 ~+ ~ ~ ! ~~ ~ m y~ ! ~ d ~ 4 ~ 4p ~ ~ E ~ ~ E ~E ~ .~ 'K ~ ~ .. a .N s'i s ~~ c i '-i ~i Fi a i r i i ~ d 3 i ~ ~~ ~2 3~~ ~~ 3~ 3L d~ j ~~ 4. ~~ §4 j~ Resolutlon No. 2009-025 Page 19 of 95 Low-Rise Condominiums The condominium portion of the project, known as the Montage ("Project"), as approved, called for the development of three separate buildings, ranging in height from 50 to 60 feet (five and six stories), containing 276 residential units. Vehicle access is provided via aright-in/right-out driveway on MacArthur Boulevard and from Sandpointe Avenue to an internal roadway. Eight residential unit types are proposed ranging from one to three bedrooms and baths. The residential styles include typical single-story condominiums, townhouses, and "live/work" units. An interior courtyard will contain a water feature and a recreation area including a tot lot, a swimming pool, a game table, a BBQ area, and a seating area. A total of 689 parking stalls will be provided on two levels of parking - one subterranean level and one above ground. The buildings will be separated by a landscaped promenade along interior-facing patios and balconies. The architectural design provides a staggered roofline, with portions extending to six stories in height. This design will provide a visual relief from that of a solid structure with a single roofline. C. Description of Proposed Project The project applicant is proposing the removal of the Cinema Lofts and the retail/restaurant components and the addition of a 185-room hotel and surface parking. The table below shows the project components that will be removed and added. It is important to note that the Final EIR analyzed 501 high-rise residential units and 14 lofts. However, the City of Santa Ana approved a configuration including 499 high-rise residential units and 15 lofts. Each of the project components, as approved by the City of Santa Ana, is discussed in more detail below. Exhibit 5 -Proposed Site Plan depicts the revised MacArthur Place South site plan. To be removed To be added Cinema Lofts (15 units and 10,000 square feet of office use) 185-room hotel Restaurant (8,580 square feet) Retail (5,291 square feet) Lake Towers The residential towers have been constructed, with a total of 349 units. The owner of the Lake Towers has submitted a proposal to the City of Santa Ana to allow for-rent units while maintaining the amenities originally approved. Traffic impacts resulting from condominium to for-rent units are analyzed herein in order to provide aworst-case analysis. The proposal to allow for-rent units has been approved by the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission, but has not been considered by the City Council at the time of this writing. No other modifications to this component of the project are proposed. Cinema Tower The Cinema Tower will be relocated south approximately 174 feet from the location analyzed in the project Final EIR. The Cinema Tower will remain west of Hutton Center Drive, across from the North Lake Tower, and 150 units are planned. Parking for the Cinema Tower will be accommodated in a future parking structure that will be located where a temporary surface parking lot is currently proposed. The surface parking lot will also be used as parking for the proposed hotel in the interim. Resolution No. 2009-025 IB{~~HurF~ace South EIR Addendum 15 • Cinema Lofts The 15 Cinema Lofts will be eliminated from the project. The lofts included resident-serving amenities such as a spa, a gym, and an amenity deck that included a pool and an outdoor terrace. Similar amenities will be provided in the Cinema Tower. Retail/Restaurant The retaiUrestaurant component analyzed in the EIR included three retail spaces with 5,291 square feet and two restaurant spaces with 8,580 square feet for a total of 13, 871 square feet. Parking would be provided on the surface lot. The retaiUrestaurant component will be eliminated to be replaced with the addition of the Marriott hotel. Low-Rise Condominiums The owner of the low-rise condominiums site has submitted a proposal to the City of Santa Ana to change the low-rise condominiums as analyzed in the MacArthur Place EIR to for-rent residential units while maintaining the amenities originally approved. Traffic impacts resulting from condominium to for-rent unit uses are analyzed herein in order to provide aworst-case analysis. The proposal to alter the land use has not been approved by the City at the time of this writing. No other modifications to this component of the project are proposed. Hotel The proposed hotel will be constructed where the retail and restaurant uses and the Cinema Tower • were previously located. The 4-story hotel will have 185 rooms with approximately 100,097 square feet. Amenities will include a pool and a spa. A plan showing the hotel, the parking lot, and the existing parking structure is included as Exhibit 6 -Proposed Cinema Site Plan. A plan showing the ground floor plan for the new hotel is included herein as Exhibit 7 -Ground Floor Plan. Development will occur in one phase with the entire 185-room hotel being constructed at the same time. A total of 615 parking spaces will be provided, which will be comprised of a combination of spaces in the existing parking structure and surface parking lot. Specifically, the parking will include 133 dedicated surface parking spaces, 25 dedicated spaces from the existing office parking structure, and 475 spaces from the office parking structure available in the evening. When the Cinema Tower is constructed, a new parking structure will be built to meet the parking needs of the hotel and the Cinema Tower. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 21 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 16 m3 ~~ a a~ m c a~ 3 ~ m w 0 c • e f .~) ,~~- , j , ~'`) °~ a y 4i .. ~~~~ ~ .... :~ ~; ~~ ~ } ~~ R ' ~ \ z air ~ y i a fj ~ },! ~"P" M•- ~9 `~ l 5 ~ k f``t ~' ~ 3 Cjl .. ~ is ~ R ~ ~ i ~ ?.`~'v: A 4 ' yj yy ti :i y[ y¢ yi yY !y y 7 - ;y ; ;. ,~ ~ ^~ R B~ ~ ;P R R. R. R. ~ 9 ~ ~9 i0 f m x cn 0 -o 0 m a K m -o Resolu n No. 2009-025 Page 2~of 95 i• i• i• m~ ~m a~ a m a~ c m 3 ~, ur 0 c ~~'"' >o ~:n E P e . , i i i 1 ~. {v"I ~l h ~ k : c i 1 ~ ~... Y.. .t~, f ~ ,~ . I •. ...~.•.,.• } 7 . .. „~ tje m . a i l _ ~. _ ... _. _..._.__ __....-II _._--- ....... ........._.._.-__. -- -- -- - ._ 41 t ii i = - ~ I r ". ~ ' ~ ~~' i _ . '~ y ao ~, -~ s :. j t ~ $ 111 p ~ p ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 't lv ,-. 1 j ~ ~ ~ ~3k? ~ ~~ - :„ `~ ' ~ ~ n ~ r.,~ ~ 4 /_/_x \ I s/ T; J ~6 l 1 ~J ~~-------- r _ _- -- _. _ r mm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm o c e oao©oa r dYtp 4 4 tl4 i 33 Rt ptlA tl~tl • p ~~1~°a~~10i810;'~'~~~~~i~'~~g~ppiE+~~ ~~~yz~~~~~~3~ • i~p Mietl w¢~~~'i~~eY6~b~~i~~E' ~DA~~4 ~ 3 ~ k~~~ 4S ~ p ~{~ii A. ~g $ k 6A~~ jyi~ ~ ~ ~~i3 ~ ~ gg yy4 ,~' psi{! ~~ ~~ a ~a~ a~~ ga 4 p ~ w~ 4~~ a E t t ~ 4 ~ f~~ ~ t ~ ~ ` d 0 P 0 O H tD a n ~o a 0 v a Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 23 of 95 m~ m a -mss m c n~ c ~ 3 ~ 0 c i1 >n ~~~T ~~:n a~ o ~q~~~~~~g~~ ~ m R '~ ~n ~~4 ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ o ~ ~ m ~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~s~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ '} i ~ _ O ~ :~~ i~~ ,~~.~~ ~. LV o"{ Q ', afj ~ { q 4~ fiF t~ I i ®r ~ u `ten ® ~ r-- ~~ ., ,. ; ~ Y. ~-11. ~L Q. Z i~ , ~ ~„ ,. ~ ~~ ~@ ; ~. m ~; -~'/J-/p- 7 - _ - 0~@ ~~ ~. m@ ~ . P . ; _ .__. . m a' . -~' ~o ~ _J ~, , .f\_ ______ ___ e ~ ~``~`LVV j C 9 4J , ~~ i i ~ - I ~~ M ~ A S 5 F ~R ~ ~X ~ 1 ~_ e.. _ / ~ m .. . _ 50{ ;....... ~ -_ ~_ - »_. _. _. _.. © O O O f O O^~® C Q° ®~ Q^ Q r~.. _ p '.a, d ~ 4 6 ..9~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ \~. 0 ~~ (, ~ O .,. 3 ' -- ~ O ~~~ ~ ~ ~ p J` ~ ~ o - --~--~ ~~ 4 g ~. p ®° $@ ' a 1 4 i n~~-'l ~1 , ~ m p - ~ ---~ 9 ~~ .i ~. o ~ @ ~~ @~~ ~ i ~, , ~ ~ ~ y # ~ ~. __._ _ 1 ^ t Q ~YY t ~ € :s: ~ ~Q''@ A~ ~+ ~° d 7 R { p A A -;.... - .' L ~,. Q O®®O <~ X~[~ ~ /J~ V O C 7 a 0 0 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 24 of 95 D. Approvals Contemplated • 1 the Ci of Santa Ana Plannin Commission and the Ci The Addendum will require approva by ty g ty Council. In taking action on the Addendum the City, as Lead Agency, must consider the whole of the data presented in the MacArthur Place South Final EIR and this Addendum to the EIR. The proposed hotel will undergo site plan review and will require a limited ABC license for a beer and wine bar and special event activities. Future Requirement for Determination of No Hazard The relocation of the previously approved Cinema Tower will require a new request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. A Determination of No Hazard is issued by the FAA if it is determined that the proposed project does not have a substantial physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. The original FAA Determination was issued on September 1, 2004 and expired on March 1, 2006. The Determination was based on a building location (33° 41' 55.807" latitude; 117° 51' 57.727" longitude) in approximately the same footprint as now proposed. Subsequent to the first Determination, the project proponent relocated the building 174' to the north (33° 41' 57.496" latitude; 117° 51' 57.701" longitude) and applied for a No Hazard Determination based on that location. In May 2005, the FAA issued four Determinations of No Hazard for the four corners of the relocated building. The Determinations expired on November 8, 2006. A new request will be submitted to the FAA once a construction schedule has been established for the Cinema Tower. • On February 17, 2005 the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) chose to treat the absence of the Determination of No Hazard as an impairment of their review and voted that the project was not consistent with AELUP. At a June 16, 2005 meeting, the ALUC staff requested and the Commission agreed to find the project conditionally consistent with the AELUP and incorporated the new FAA Determinations into its decision. In June 2005, when the EIR was certified, the City of Santa Ana was inconsistent with respect to the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. On December 18, 2008, the ALUC approved the City's General Plan Airport Environs Element and deemed the City consistent. • MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 25 of 95 23 Environmental Analysis For Projects with Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents Final Environmental Impact Report MacArthur Place South SCN 2004061140 The following analysis takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the project and describes the modifications to the proposed project from what was analyzed in the EIR. This analysis evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to § 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Environmental Checklist is included following this analysis. Analysis of the facts related to the project will form the basis for the City of Santa Ana to determine whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances or any new information since the MacArthur Place EIR was certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. I. Aesthetics The EIR determined that implementation of the project would introduce additional light and glare impacts to the project area. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A complete evaluation of the aesthetics effects of the project was considered in the MacArthur Place South Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is considered a scenic vista. The retail/restaurant uses previously approved will be replaced by a four-story (55 feet tall) 185-room hotel fronting MacArthur Boulevard. The articulation and elevation of the hotel building are shown in Exhibit 8 -North and South Hotel Elevations and Exhibit 9 -East and West Hotel Elevations. While this is an increase in height from the retail/restaurant use, the adjacent development, both on site and across Main and MacArthur Boulevard, includes high- rise development. As a result, no significant impacts related to scenic vistas will occur. The 5- to 6-story (60 foot high) Cinema Lofts were a part of the project analyzed in the EIR. These lofts are no longer a part of the project. The Cinema Tower will be re-located from its previous location, adjacent to the retail/restaurant component, south to its new location, where the Cinema Lofts were planned. This southerly shift in location places the Cinema Tower south of MacArthur Boulevard by approximately 174 feet from the previously approved location. The changes as a result of the City's action on this project are not more significant than what was identified in the EIR. Resolution No. 2009-025 IB~~fu-f~ace South EIR Addendum 25 • • • b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A complete evaluation of the aesthetics effects of the project was considered in the EIR. There are no scenic resources, thus the project will have no impact regarding scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As depicted in the EIR, parking areas and pedestrian walkways will contain attractive landscaping treatments to enhance the open space areas. Trees and shrubbery will be used around the perimeter of the hotel, providing a softening of visual impacts at street level. Palm trees, Jacaranda and Pine trees will be planted along the perimeter of the hotel with palm trees planted at the front of the hotel. A number of trellises will be incorporated into the hotel along the south, east and west sides. The trellises will include landscaping with vines or floral vines for decorative purposes. The Jacaranda and Pine trees will serve as a buffer for the hotel along MacArthur Boulevard and along the east and west sides of the hotel. An updated landscape plan is included as Exhibit 10. The project incorporates landscaping around the hotel and adjacent to the Cinema Tower location. The proposed four-story hotel is compatible with the adjacent land uses. The North and South Lake Towers are 25 stories tall, the office buildings range in height from the 8 story buildings at 200 and 201 East Sandpointe Avenue to a 14 story building at 5 Hutton Centre Drive. There is also asix-story Doubletree Hotel south of the Lake Towers. The proposed addition of the hotel and deletion of the Cinema Lofts and retail/commercial square footage does change the visual character of the site beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. However, no significant changes to the existing visual character of the site will result from the project beyond those identified in the EIR because the proposed four-story hotel is consistent with the surrounding land uses. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The exterior of the hotel will predominantly be covered by a stucco finish. Due to the developed nature of the project site and the existence of a hotel just north of MacArthur Boulevard, the proposed hotel is compatible with existing uses and is not expected to substantially increase light or glare. The following Mitigation Measure is proposed to reduce any potential impacts from light and glare: Mitigation Measure AE-1- Prior to issuance of building permits the project applicant shall ensure that building plans for the proposed project shall include the use of non- reflective building materials to minimize light and glare impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-1 will reduce light and glare and will ensure that development of the project will have no more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 27 of 95 26 m~ m ads m c a~ c ~ 3 ~, m 0 c N V X Q i Z O S d 7 d V1 O C 2 O __ r-~F 4. r r-. ~ r'z~-~ c-r_.}~ __ ~r_z._....4' r r fk r-''__~ r-r_;~ aa 8 ~ ~ 4 ~~ 2 ~ ~ d s, ~ ~ 2 ~ $~ ~ ~ c ___. ~. ~ ~. - . ~ y ? _. ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~, - _ , - p~; : - --t ~ ~ ~ Q o I ~ _ ao ' 0 _ O _ p O 7P € ~~- E 5 p i - _ ._ ® .. © oc~r~d~ ~ ~~ q p ~. . -.---- ... . _.0 v _~, ' ' .. Qt rl { {I ~R916Bk~J9diC~RE - Illl ' ~~ O r~~ `_~ ~, p 4 ,_ ~ ~, ~ ~ O ~: , ~ - ~. - - p ,. ~ --- a~~ . , R~;,, ~~ g . , ~ _-O a, - > - a ,~ _ _ ~ - ' ` ~ _ --p ~ s ~a _ O ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ . ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ® O '. ~~ p L ~ ~ z - _ __ ~ ~ gE9E ~ ~ O ~ a 1 . ~r O 6 Y ~ r) ~ 1 ! X~ ~ -~ ~~i (fl / ~l O - ~~ ~ ~s g ' ~ Q __: .: _~ , ~- 0 ,.~ ~ ' _ ~_ ~ ,..Q ~ ~.=_ _ 1 - ~ ~, ~ Q `~' ~~ ~ I ~ LJ ~ __ ~ - i .. ~ ~ y i6i I i v^ i' _ e~ ~'o , ~ ^ x,d'.."- _. ,, .....,..:.. $ . _ ~ ~. .. rr tD m m tv K 0 IA Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 28 of 95 m~ ~~ m c m 3 ~, °v_ N 0 c • ~^ ~- ~. .~ m >v N d 7 d ~. 0 R ~_ • m n. r. N ~ ~ N O :., e .~p r i D -Wf £ b ?r ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nil i O _ , • M _ _ ~ ~ ~" i O ~ ~~ 'J O ~ ~ `lf~ ~!J~ I I~ ~ ~ o i ~ 9 ~~ ~ ::~ --. ~t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~~ ~~ O ~~~~~, ~L:1. ~ ~' I ~ F - ~ o ~~ i ~~~. o ~ ~ ~ - - - ~~~ f ~;'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ O -~- - O _ 3 -. ~ r ,~ ~~ 8 ~ ~Q~ i'~ Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 29 of 95 m~ m n~ a m ~ a~ 3 ~ 0 c r .a7 ~:0 1~ d~ ~ ~ a -j s ~` ~~ ~' rty~ f1 ,~ ,1 ~~ A ~~ ~ $ ~ L~ -"}; 9 i r I ~ . - I h _.m J i I ~' ~ ~ ~ Y -~! ~ ~ ~~ G~ ~ i ~ - ~ ~ ,. J i_~"~ ~ ~" ~: a`• ~,,,r'1,i.3J~d ~ ~,~ ~t fc ~~ , i rx+~~ at }~ j't~~'~ y .~, Y;'~• ~ _ '-a~ I u 4 y fi3 G T~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ .~:~_ J..`~ -11:~~ ~ ~ ~ _ a ~. I A `~U ~ .dl+a ~,, ~ 1 U '• 1 '~ `i ,~ ,, m ~.~ ~~ ssN ~ ' ~ `~' ~, ~ ~ t ~ ~. €~ ~~ ,~ F €: t: :~ ~ :;, FFy, ~., t~~t•.K ' ~" \J .. i A, '1 l~ '4J ~~ ~ ~k ~.~ ji 1~ I !AJ .7 l ,~ ~~ fJ'1 ~% 6 aj r', 3~, 1 ~ rt' x& ~ i€ ~t ¢ t rs t f~ ~ ~~ 4 a ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ t5 ~ ~ yy 9 p~ 3s r ~ as ~~~ 3d 9 P d i' ~ 6d r l 4 ~ t ,E ~ 1 r ~ E , ~ ~3 s x 3 S R " ~ it b i °~ tg ~a a ~ ~, tr # (f 'e T ~ S' ° II i ~ ~f ' s P € ~ ~ ~~ r ~~ '-~ a 51 s 4 1~ ~ E r s~ 3 } ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ 8 3G d? ~ , E3 ¢ 4 1, t° ~ j 1 ~ o ~F l ? 1 i~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 - ,3~ d t 0 ' k YF ! 4' k F R ? 6 .` F F F e F ~ # ~ a k P G { j ~? .. -1 ~~ ;; , I, .. d f 4 S x # ; / q F~ ~~ # fA ~; 2 f { ~`5 G ~ ~j t as >.. ~~; d; a a d ~ 9 d~ _ i ~ ~. 1 ~. d ' ~ f' f E ~' ~ ~ i . MacARTHUR PLACE MASTER PLAN ® j „ k ~ ~ ~ R s ~ (v ~ ~ art. o¢ sA~IA.~A ~A~~F~~„ ~ ~ 9 ~; ~ ~ 3 ~ F ~ 4 MACARiHUR PLACE IANOSCAPE MPSTER PL4N '. i;,9t ~' X S Q 0 r d a N A SL ~_ 7 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 30 of 95 II. Air Quality • The Air Quality analysis in the EIR was based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds. Short-term construction activity impacts exceeded significance thresholds for ROG due to the application of architectural coatings. Mitigation measures were included to minimize these unavoidable adverse impacts. The EIR analysis determined that project-related operational emissions will exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for CO, ROG and NOX primarily due to area source (consumer product) emissions. Mitigation measures were proposed to minimize the long-term unavoidable adverse impacts. Cumulative air quality impacts from the MacArthur Place South project were analyzed in the EIR and were determined to be significant and adverse when added to the existing non-attainment levels of the South Coast Air Basin. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Since the certification of the EIR, the state legislature passed AB 32 known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. This Addendum provides informa- tion related to greenhouse gas emissions impacts. An updated Trip Generation Evaluation (Traffic Evaluation), dated April 1, 2009, was prepared by Urban Crossroads. This evaluation is included herein as Appendix A. For purposes of air quality impacts, the Traffic Evaluation concludes that the elimination of the identified project components, the addition of the hotel and the conversion of the Lake Towers and low-rise Montage condominiums to apartment uses will result in a total of 83 fewer trips in the AM peak hour, 105 trips in the PM peak hour and 758 fewer trips on a daily basis. The revised project will result in less air quality impacts due to traffic emissions than the project approved in the EIR. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No • Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Since the certification of the EIR, additional legislation requires the analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts due to development. State of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in August 2006. AB 32 requires that levels of GHG be reduced to1990 levels by the year 2020. There are currently no federal regulations on the reduction of GHG to reduce their effects on global climate changes. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) requires that the Governor's Office of Planning and Research develop guidelines for CEQA compliance related to GHG emissions, including mitigation measures for the reduction of GHG. The guidelines are required to be prepared on or before July 1, 2009. Global climate change in the weather of the earth can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipita- tion and temperature. Climatic factors are divided between those caused primarily by human activity (such as greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol emissions) and those caused by natural forces (such as solar irradiance). A primary cause of greenhouse gas emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. There is currently no single model that is capable of estimating all of a project's direct and indirect GHG emissions.' The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association whitepaper notes that one of the most consistently used models for emissions estimates is the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS).z The URBEMIS model was used in the EIR to assess emissions for the project. URBEMIS is designed to model emissions associated with development of urban land uses. URBEMIS attempts to summarize criteria air pollutants and COZ emissions that would occur during construction and operation of new development. This model was developed and approved by the California Air ' California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate Change (Evaluating and AddressiQQng • z Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quali est Put on ZZ~9-025 Ibid. ~ ~ moo. Page 31 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 33 Resources Board (GARB) and ensures statewide consistency in how CO2 emissions are modeled and reported from various project types. The URBEMIS model is the most effective tool for assessing COZ greenhouse gas emissions available to date. The EIR identified air quality impacts that would result from project implementation, both short-term construction and long-term operational. As detailed in the EIR, project-related operational emissions will exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx primarily due to area source (consumer product) emissions. These are considered an unavoidable adverse impact. Additionally, construction activity impacts will exceed significance thresholds for ROG due to application of architectural coatings. The removal of the Cinema Lofts and the retaiUrestaurant uses, and addition of the hotel is not anticipated to either greatly alleviate or greatly increase project impacts from what was analyzed in the EIR. Thus, the project's impacts on air quality are anticipated to remain the same as the original project's impacts, which on a cumulative basis are significant and adverse. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The Air Quality Assessment in the EIR included projected COZ emissions for demolition, mass grading, fine grading, trenching, building construction, architectural coatings, and asphalt emissions. Construction and operational emissions are difficult to assess, given that no thresholds for greenhouse gases have been established. Typical thresholds are based on types of use, such as residential, office, or retail, and are further defined by such things as number of units and square footage. The project will include a construction phase during which heavy equipment will be used for demolition, grading, and construction. The construction schedule for the lofts, retail and restaurant portion of the previous project was 14 months for complete build out, and the construction schedule for the proposed project is anticipated to be the same. Short-term impacts in the area of greenhouse gases will be due to the use of heavy equipment. Short-term construction related impacts were limited to ROG emissions from architectural coatings. As detailed in the EIR, ROG emissions still exceed threshold levels even with the use of all available measures if all project paints and coating were applied in a single month. Thus, air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project will not change substantially from the previous analysis. As noted, in the EIR, the MacArthur Place South project will exceed thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx in the long-term operational use. Long-term project-related impacts include exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx primarily due to area source (consumer product) emissions. The addition of the 185-room hotel will result in an increase in CO due to consumer product emissions by the hotel guests. The proposed reduction in unit size (removal of 15 units because the Cinema Lofts will not be built) could result in lower population estimates, which could reduce consumer use emissions. The EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce and minimize air quality impacts. The following Mitigation Measure is proposed in order to further minimize the incremental increase from greenhouse gases during construction of the hotel: Mitigation Measure A¢ 1 -During design and construction, the project developer shall incorporate features into the project that will minimize impacts from greenhouse gas emissions such as planting onsite trees as a means of providing carbon storage, promoting energy saving measures beyond Title 24 requirements, and encouraging the use of Energy Star equipment and appliances. Resolution No. 2009-025 Mali2lat;®`~outh EIR Addendum 34 Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 will result in fewer operational emissions, resulting in no • substantial change from the previous analysis in the area of greenhouse gases. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard Including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified cumulatively significant air quality impacts that would result from project implementation. The retail/restaurant component of project will be replaced by the 185-room hotel and the Cinema Lofts will no longer be built. In addition, revised total daily traffic estimates result in 758 fewer trips than the originally approved project, reducing air quality impacts due to traffic. Although changes to the project are proposed, no new or significant impacts will occur. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified air quality impacts related to sensitive receptors with project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified air quality impacts that would result from project implementation. The project involves the addition of a four-story hotel and removal of the Cinema Lofts and the retail/restaurant uses. If the hotel includes a restaurant, impacts would be substantially the same as the restaurant • previously analyzed and now removed. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. III. Geology and Soils The EIR noted that the proposed project could be subject to potentially significant adverse geologic impacts. Mitigation measures were included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) 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 known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 (1Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to the settlement potential and high moisture content of the soils. The proposed hotel will replace the retail/restaurant component of the project. The Cinema Lofts will be eliminated and the Cinema Tower will eventually be relocated south of the hotel. The hotel will have no different geological impacts from what was analyzed in the EIR. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 33 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 35 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to seismic-related ground failure. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. iv) Landslides? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to landslides. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The following Mitigation Measure is from the EIR and will reduce erosion. Mitigation Measure G-1 -During grading operations, the project applicant shall ensure special handling of on-site soils as required by the City of Santa Ana due to the high moisture content of the soils, which is well above optimum moisture conditions. The City of Santa Ana shall monitor the grading contractor to ensure stabilization of the soils during grading prior to placing and compacting fill soils over wet subgrade soils, as recommended in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. Implementation of mitigation measures in the EIR will reduce project impacts relating to erosion to a less than significant level. Thus, development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts due to unstable soil. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts relating to expansive soil. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. Resolution No. 2009-025 MactiRlleb®~outh EIR Addendum 36 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal • systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of water? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts relating to geology and soils. The project will not include the use of septic systems or alternative water disposal systems. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. • IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR noted that the proposed project could be subject to potentially significant adverse hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Mitigation measures included in the EIR would reduce potential impacts to a level that would be less than significant. Would the project: a) Create a signiftcant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A Phase I Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Screening Subsurface Assess- ment were performed and discussed in the EIR. No changes have occurred in this area from that analysis. Therefore, the EIR as certified will remain adequate and complete for this topic. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project will involve hazardous materials that might unwittingly be released into the environment. Therefore, there will be no impact due to the accidental release of such materials. The EIR as certified will remain adequate and complete for this topic. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project involves the construction of a 185-room hotel, and no hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste will be emitted by the normal operation of the project. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 35 of 95 37 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The nearest public use airport, John Wayne Airport, is approximately 1.1 miles from the site. The FAA previously issued two Determinations of No Hazard for two different locations of the Cinema Tower. As described in the Introduction, Section C, both Determinations have expired. The proposed relocation of the Cinema Tower will require a new aeronautical study by the FAA at a future time when the Cinema Tower is scheduled for construction. Mitigation Measure H-1 -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that an FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been obtained for the relocated Cinema Tower. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA in their Determination. Implementation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR will occur. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to hazards. ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard. ~ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The construction of the proposed project will not produce any physical constraints or impair an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Standard conditions have been imposed regarding provision of fire access roads and fire lane markings as well as project review by the Fire Authority. As analyzed in the EIR, there will be no impact related to impairment of emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified potential impacts in the area of hazards and hazardous materials that would result from project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. V. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and water quality impacts due to short-term construction activities and long-term operation were identified in the EIR. Mitigation measures were included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures from the EIR are incorporated herein by reference and include HW-1 thru HW-11, which, per the EIR, reduced project impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the project and will reduce short-term construction and long-term operational impacts to a less than significant level. Resolution No. 2009-025 Mactrr3~lab®~outh EIR Addendum 38 a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No • Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A Preliminary Hydrology Study of Existing and Proposed Conditions and a Water Quality Manage- ment Plan were prepared for the MacArthur Place South project. The EIR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementation. Recommendations from the technical studies for hydrology and water quality will continue to be observed. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts to the existing and proposed drainage for the proposed project and described the requirements to mitigate impacts to hydrology and water quality. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (No Substantial Change • from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementa- tion. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts due to runoff that would result from project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. ~ Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR addressed potential impacts to water quality and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-11 included in the EIR are incorporated herein by reference and will be implemented to reduce impacts. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. ~ Would the project place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementa- • tion. The project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area. No changes have occurred in this area Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 37 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 39 from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. h) Would the project place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts related to flood hazards that would result from project implementation. The project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts related to flooding that would result from project implementation. The project is not located in the vicinity of a levee or a dam. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow that would result from project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. VI. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project site is comprised of an office park and as a result, no established community exists. Thus, the project will not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. 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? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The City's General Plan land use designation for the project site is District Center (DC), which specifically allows mixed-use development. Hotels are a permitted use in the DC designation. As detailed in the EIR, the project site underwent a zone change from General Commercial (C2) to the Specific Development (SD) zone. The project, as proposed, will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. Resolution No. 2009-025 Mac1a~3Rlab®~outh EIR Addendum 40 • VII. Noise As detailed in the EIR, construction operations would increase existing noise levels for the short term, and residential land uses would be subject to significant adverse long-term noise impacts. Mitigation measures were included in the EIR to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified short-term noise impacts from on-site demolition and construction activities. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment. The mitigation measures in the EIR reduced potentially significant short-term construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR identified long-term noise impacts as mobile source noise impacts from traffic, aircraft noise impacts from John Wayne Airport, and operational noise from the operation of the project components. However, the removal of the restaurant/retail and office/lofts component of the project, in addition to the conversion from condominium to apartment uses for the Lake Towers and the low-rise residential component, will reduce traffic by 758 daily trips. This is an additional benefit in conjunction with the mitigation measures in the EIR, which reduced potentially significant long-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. The addition of the hotel in the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise. However, implementation of the mitigation measures from the EIR and the additional mitigation measures in Section VII.c below will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Development of the project • will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures were identified to reduce noise impacts in the EIR. As detailed in the EIR, the Noise Study concluded that construction will generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. However, because this will only occur during the construction phase of the project, the Noise Study concluded that this impact is not considered significant. Construction of the Cinema Lofts and the retaiUrestaurant component of the project have been eliminated and a 185-room hotel will be constructed in its place. Construction of the proposed hotel is expected to produce groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels comparable to the retail/restaurant and the Cinema Lofts previously planned on site. Mitigation measures in the EIR will be implemented to reduce groundborne vibration/noise levels. These findings and the related mitigation measures from the EIR also apply to the proposed project. Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Operational noise impacts resulting from the retaiUrestaurant uses will no longer apply because the 8,580 square feet of restaurant and 5,291 square feet of retail development are no longer a part of the project. The hotel, which is a new component replacing the retail/restaurant uses, will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is anticipated that noise will be comparable to that previously analyzed. In • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 39 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 41 order to ensure that no additional impacts result, the mitigation measures below are included to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure N-1 -During operation of the hotel, the project developer shall ensure that truck deliveries to the hotel shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Delivery trucks shall not be permitted to idle in the parking lots or loading areas and shall be required to have properly maintained, factory-approved mufflers. Delivery truck drivers shall be encouraged to minimize acceleration and maintain reduced vehicle speeds while on-site. Mitigation Measure N-2 -During project construction for the hotel, the project contractor shall verify that structural designs and acoustical baffling are implemented to reduce noise levels from mechanical equipment (ventilation fans, air conditioning, and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems) to a level that complies with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards reproduced in the table below (and also reproduced in the EIR). City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Level That May Not Be Daytime Night Exceeded for More Than 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 10:00 pm. - 7:00 a.m. 30 minutes in any hour 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 15 minutes in any hour 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 5 minutes in any hour 65 dB(A) 60 d6(A) 1 minute in any hour 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Any time 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Source: Section 18-312 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Implementation of the above mitigation measures will ensure that no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR will occur. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to noise. In regard to traffic noise impacts, the project as proposed will result in 758 fewer trips per day than the approved project. Noise impacts due to traffic will be less than originally analyzed. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to noise impacts from traffic. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts related to ambient noise levels beyond those addressed in the EIR. While certain components of the project are being removed, they are being replaced with similar uses in a mixed-use environment. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) John Wayne Airport is approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. However, the project site is outside of both Noise Impact Zones 1 and 2. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Develop- ment of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. 'Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. Resolution No. 2009-025 MacPla~~ Ft~l6b~~outh EIR Addendum 42 • ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. VIII. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed project will result in fewer residential units than what was analyzed in the EIR because the Cinema Lofts will be not be built. The project will reduce the number of residential units analyzed in the EIR by 15. The proposed project will have no more severe impacts than analyzed in the EIR and the City's General Plan. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. b) Displace substantial number of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No existing housing will be disturbed with implementation of the proposed project, as none exists on the site. Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. • c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As noted in item b) above, no existing housing will be disturbed with implementation of the project. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. IX. Public Services • The EIR identified potential impacts to service providers as a result of the proposed project. However, measures were included to ensure that coordination would occur with public service providers to minimize any potential impacts from occurring. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse 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 ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed project will require fire, police, and emergency services. Mitigation Measures in the EIR were designed to minimize potential impacts to such services. The addition of the hotel will result in a potential increased need for such services. The Police and Fire Department were consulted regarding the proposed project and its potential impacts to Police, Fire and emergency services. Staff members in the City's Planning Division verified with the Police and Fire Departments in the City of Santa Ana that the addition of the 185 room hotel will not impact their services to the City. The EIR provides for coordination with public service providers to ensure their ability to serve t~@~.~~~gj~will Page 41 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 43 have no new or more severe impacts to fire, police, and emergency services beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. X. Recreation The EIR provides for the payment of Park Acquisition and Development Fees, parkland dedication or in-lieu fee payments to reduce impacts to recreation facilities. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks of other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) An evaluation of the impacts to recreation related to the project was presented in the EIR. As noted in the EIR, the proposed project will include on-site recreation amenities for residents of the condominiums. The proposed project reduces the number of residential units by 15. Additionally, the proposed project removes the Cinema Lofts analyzed in the EIR. The recreational amenities in the Cinema Lofts included an open-air amenity deck, a pool and outdoor area, a health spa, and a gym. Recreational amenities such as these will be provided in the Cinema Tower. The proposed hotel includes an activity lawn and apool/spa. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As part of the proposed project, the hotel includes a pooUspa and an activity lawn and, as mentioned above, recreational amenities will be provided in the Cinema Tower. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. XI. Transportation/Traffic A Traffic Study was prepared by Urban Crossroads in October 2003 and revised in October 2004 for the MacArthur Place South project. The EIR included analysis based on that study. Urban Crossroads has prepared a Trip Generation Evaluation (Traffic Evaluation) dated April 1, 2009 for this Addendum analyzing traffic impacts resulting from the elimination of identified project components and the addition of a hotel component. The following traffic analysis is based on the 2009 Traffic Evaluation, which is included herein as Appendix A. The Traffic Evaluation incorporated trip generation rates from the recently published Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) information report entitled "Trip Generation" (8`" Edition, 2008). The 2003/2004 Traffic Study incorporated trip generation rates from the 7`" Edition ITE Trip Generation Rates. The 2009 Traffic Evaluation notes that the only categories with rate changes are ITE code 850 (AM and PM peak hour) and ITE code 932 (PM peak hour). These rates are applied to supermarket and high turnover (restaurant) uses. The table below, Trip Generation Rates, identifies the rates used to calculate traffic generation for the proposed project. Resolution No. 2009-025 Mac~421a>;®~outh EIR Addendum 44 C~ • Trip Generation Rates Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8'h Edition, 2008. 1 DU =dwelling units, TSF =thousand square feet 2 Daily irip rate based on PM peak hour rate and PM peak to daily relationship for high rise apartments 3 Nom -nominal, near zero Peak Hour Trip Rates AM PM Land Use ITE Code Units' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Residential condoltownhouse 230 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 High rise res. condoltownhouse 232 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Mid-rise apartment2 223 DU 0.09 0.21 0.30 0.23 0.16 0.39 4.68 High rise apartment 222 DU 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.14 0.35 4.20 Business hotel 312 occupied room 0.34 0.24 0.58 0.37 0.25 0.62 7.27 Movie theater wlo matinee 443 TSF nom3 nom nom 5.79 0.37 6.16 78.06 Single-tenant office building 715 TSF 1.6 0.20 1.80 0.26 1.47 1.73 11.57 Supermarket 850 TSF 2.19 1.40 3.59 5.36 5.14 10.50 102.24 High-turnover (sit down) restaurant 932 TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.58 4.57 11.15 127.15 Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traj~c 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 ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR identified significant impacts due to the increase in traffic from the MacArthur Place South project. Mitigation Measures were included in the EIR to minimize the impacts. The 2009 Traffic Evaluation concluded that the proposed project, as detailed in this Addendum, would result in reduced trip generation for all timeframes evaluated. The reduction in traffic volumes is partly due to the analysis based on using the optional alternative for high- and low-rise apartment units rather than condominium units. The table below (Currently Approved Project Trip Generation Summary) details the currently approved project trip summary. Currently Approved Project Trip Generation Summary • Peak Hour AM PM Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Condominium project (5-story) 230 276 DU 19 102 121 97 47 144 1,604 Lake Towers (high-rise condos) 232 349 DU 21 98 119 84 49 133 1,459 Cinema Tower condominiums 232 150 DU 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Townhomes 230 15 DU 1 6 7 5 3 8 87 Office condos (single-tenant) 715 10 TSF 16 2 18 3 15 18 116 Retail 850 5.35 TSF 12 7 19 29 27 56 547 High-turnover (sit down) restaurant 932 8.55 TSF 51 47 98 56 39 95 1,087 Future use traffic total 129 304 433 310 201 511 5,527 Internal capture (5%) 6 15 21 16 10 26 276 Future use external traffic total 123 289 412 294 191 485 5,251 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 43 of 95 45 Peak Hour AM PM Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Existing uses demolished Theater (20% utilization of 40 TSF)z 443 8.0 TSF 0 0 0 46 3 49 624 Restaurant (sports grill)3 932 12.0 TSF 0 0 0 79 55 134 1,526 Existing traffic total -- -- - 0 0 0 125 58 183 2,150 Net new traffic total (future extemal -existing) 123 289 412 169 133 302 3,101 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8~h Edition, 2008. 1 DU =dwelling units, TSF =thousand square feet 2 Theater utilization of 20%full occupancy at the time traffic counts were conducted. 3 Sports grill assumed to generate no AM peak hour traffic. The table below (Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary) details the proposed project trip generation summary based on the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary Peak Hour AM PM Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Condominium project (5-story) 230 276 DU 25 58 83 63 44 107 1,292 Lake Towers (high-rise condos) 222 349 DU 28 77 105 73 49 122 1,466 Cinema Tower condominiums 232 150 DU 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Business hotel 312 185 occupied rm 63 44 107 68 46 114 1,345 Future use traffic total 125 221 346 240 160 400 4 370 Internal capture (5%) 6 11 17 12 8 20 237 Future use extemal traffic total 119 210 329 228 152 380 4,493 Existing uses demolished Theater (20% utilization of 40 TSF)2 443 8.0 TSF 0 0 0 46 3 49 624 Restaurant (sports grill)3 932 12.0 TSF 0 0 0 79 55 134 1,526 Existing traffic total - - - 0 0 0 125 58 183 2,150 Proposed project net new traffic total (future extemal -existing) 119 210 329 103 94 197 2,343 Currently approved project net new traffic total 123 289 412 169 133 302 3,101 Difference (Proposed -Approved) -4 -79 -83 -66 -39 -105 -758 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8'h Edition, 2008. 1 DU =dwelling units, TSF =thousand square feet 2 Theater utilization of 20% full occupancy at the time traffic counts were conducted. 3 Sports grill assumed to generate no AM peak hour traffic. As shown in the tables above, impacts due to traffic would be reduced with the proposed project. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to traffic, and the project, as currently proposed, would not result in an increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR addressed traffic impacts to surrounding streets and freeways. Mitigation measures were included to reduce impacts. Fair share contributions towards proposed improvements will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed project will result in fewer daily trips than the project as analyzed in the EIR, and no new or more significant impacts will occur. Therefore, the EIR Resolution No. 2009-025 Mac14R11aar®~outh EIR Addendum 46 remains complete and adequate in regards to analysis of exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, • levels of service established by the county congestion management agency. c) Result in a change in air traj~c patterns, including either an increase in traj~c levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No change in air traffic patterns will occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The analysis in the EIR considered traffic impacts on the existing streets within the project site and in the surrounding area. No design features or incompatible uses are proposed that would substantially increase hazards. Therefore, the EIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Emergency access exists within the development area of the proposed project, and no changes or modifications are proposed in this Addendum. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to emergency access. ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Parking requirements were analyzed in the EIR, and provision was made for the required amount of parking for all components of the project. To accommodate the proposed hotel included in this Addendum, a total of 615 parking spaces will be provided comprised of a combination of spaces in the existing parking structure and surface parking lot until the Cinema Tower is constructed. When the Cinema Tower is constructed, a new parking structure will be built to meet the parking needs of the • hotel and the Cinema Tower. No new parking impacts will occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate for the provision of required parking. ~ Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. XII. Utilities and Service Systems The retail/restaurant and the Cinema Lofts components of the previously approved project will be removed, and the hotel will replace the retail and restaurant uses. The Cinema Lofts location will eventually accommodate the relocated Cinema Tower. The City of Santa Ana has confirmed that a 12-inch sewer main has recently been constructed that will meet the sewer needs of the proposed hotel. Additionally, as detailed below, staff in the City's Public Works Department has also indicated that adequate water infrastructure exits to support the project. The technical reports prepared for the EIR were relied upon to calculate the proposed project's impacts on water and sewer demand. Please see Sections XII.b and XII.d below for an analysis of water and sewer demand compared to the previously approved project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The addition of the 185-room hotel and removal of the retail/restaurant and Cinema Lofts are not • anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Please refer td~~i113~91'~II~9~r9~II.d Page 45 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 47 below. Mitigation measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. 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? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. As detailed in correspondence with the City of Santa Ana Planning Division and Public Works Agency, the proposed hotel project sewer discharge need will be addressed by a new 12" sewer main that was recently constructed in MacArthur Place. More than adequate water and sewer infrastructures have been constructed by the project applicant at the proposed hotel project frontage to meet the project's water and sewer needs. The data from the Walden and Associates Domestic Sewer Technical Report for MacArthur Place dated March 3, 2004 and revised January 14, 2005 was utilized to calculate the proposed project impacts on sewer demands. The following components will not be a part of the proposed project: retail, restaurant, and commercial/residential components of the Cinema Lofts. The sewer demand calculation for those uses is detailed below. The table illustrates that the land uses eliminated will result in a reduction in sewer demand of 6,154 gallons per day. Reduction in Sewer Demand Square Feet Demand Demand Land Use (SF)Nnits (du) Coefficient (gallonslday) Cinema Site Commercial 10,000 SF 50 g/ksf/d 500 (Cinema Lofts) Cinema Site Residential 15 DU 215 g/d/du 3,225 (Cinema Lofts) Restaurant 8,590 SF 175 g/ksf/d 1,503 Retail 5,291 SF 175 g/ksfld 926 Total - - 6,154 The project proposes to add a 185-room hotel. As detailed in the Domestic Sewer Technical Report for MacArthur Place, the Doubletree Hotel had a demand coefficient of 150 g/d/rm. This same demand coefficient was used to calculate the proposed hotel's sewer demand, as detailed in the table below. Sewer Demand of Proposed Hotel Demand Demand Land Use Rooms Coefficient (gallonslday) Proposed hotel 185 150 g/d/rm 27,750 As detailed in the EIR, the wastewater demand for the previous project was 282,608 gallons per day. The table below illustrates the increase in sewer demand for the proposed project. Resolution No. 2009-025 Macl~leb®`South EIR Addendum 48 • Updated Sewer Demand Increase in Sewer Demand from the Proposed Project Wastewater Demand Gallons per Day (gallons per day) Previous wastewater demand 282,608 (per EIR) Reduction in sewer demand from -6,154 304,204 -282 608 removed project components , 21,596 Additional sewer demand from +27,750 185-room hotel Total updated sewer demand 304,204 As detailed in the table above, the reduction in sewer demand from the removed project components, plus the addition in sewer demand from the proposed hotel, result in an updated sewer demand of 304,204 gallons per day. The proposed project will increase the sewer demand by 21,596 gallons per day compared to the previous project. The City has indicated that the proposed hotel project sewer discharge need will be addressed by a new 12" sewer main, which has recently been constructed. As detailed in the Domestic Sewer Technical Report for MacArthur Place, a 12" line has a flow rate of 0.405 million gallons per day (MGD). The project, as addended, would result in a sewer demand of 304,204 gallons a day, which is less than .0405 million gallons per day capacity. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. 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? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the EIR, the previous project was to be entirely developed with impermeable surfaces. The proposed project will also be entirely developed with impermeable surfaces. Thus, no adverse impact on the existing storm water drainage facilities is anticipated because the project as proposed will not significantly differ in terms of runoff from the project analyzed in the EIR. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation Measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. As detailed in the EIR, the City of Santa Ana Water Department provides water service to the MacArthur Place South project area. The data from the Walden and Associates Domestic Water Technical Report for MacArthur Place (Amendment No. 1) dated March 3, 2004 and Amended November 19, 2004 was utilized to calculate the proposed project impacts on water demand. The following components will not be a part of the proposed project: retail, restaurant, and commerciaUresidential components of the Cinema lofts. The water demand calculation for those uses is detailed below. As identified in the table below, the land uses eliminated will result in a reduction in water demand of 7,504 gallons per day. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 47 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 49 Reduction in Water Demand Square Feet (SF) Demand Demand Land Use IUnits (du) Coefficient (gallonslday) Cinema Site Commercial 10,000 SF 60 glksf/d 600 (Cinema Lofts) Cinema Site Residential 15du 275 gldldu 4,125 (Cinema Lofts) Restaurant 8,590 SF 220 g/ksfld 1,890 Retail Total 5,291 SF 220glksfld 1,164 __ -- 7,779 The project proposes to add a 185-room hotel. As detailed in the Amended Domestic Water Technical Report for MacArthur Place the Doubletree hotel had a demand coefficient of 180 g/d/rm. This same demand coefficient was used to calculate the proposed hotel's water demand, as detailed in the table below. Water Demand of Proposed Hotel Demand Demand Land Use Rooms Coefficient (gallonslday) Proposed Hotel 185 180 gld/rm 33,300 Updated Water Demand Increase in Water Demand from the Proposed Project Water Demand Gallons per Day (gallons per day) Previous water demand (per EIR) 354,535 Reduction in water demand from -7,779 380,056 removed project components -354.535 Additional water demand from +33,300 25,521 185-room hotel Total updated water demand 380,056 As detailed in the table above, the reduction in water demand from the removed project components plus the additional water demand from the proposed hotel result in an updated water demand of 380,056 gallons per day. The proposed project will increase the water demand by 25,521 gallons per day compared to the previous project. The updated water demand of 380,056 gallons per day converts to 426 acre feet per year, which is an increase of 29 acre feet per year compared to the previous project. As detailed in correspondence with the City of Santa Ana Planning Division and Public Works Agency, more than adequate water and sewer infrastructures, and services and laterals, have been constructed at the proposed hotel project frontage that can meet the project's water and sewer needs. A Sewer Study will not be necessary. Four 1-inch water meters, one 2-inch water meter, and a 6-inch sewer lateral are available at the project's frontage in MacArthur Boulevard. A 6-inch water vault and meter and an 8-inch fire service are also available. Additionally, as detailed in the EIR, at 2020, the City's overall water production would be 55,370 acre feet per year. Between 2010 and 2020 the City's water production would increase by 2,410 acre-feet per year. The increased amount of water production between 2006 and 2020 would accommodate the increased water demand generated by the Resolution No. 2009-025 MacMl~leb®~outh EIR Addendum 50 project and the projected build out of the City's current General Plan. The project will have no new or • more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. e) Result in a 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? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. As detailed in the EIR, the previous project would not result in wastewater generation that would exceed the design capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) Reclamation Plant No. 1. It is anticipated that OCSD would be able handle wastewater from the proposed 185-room hotel. However, if Plant No. 1 is operating at capacity, wastewater flows would be diverted to Reclamation Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a need to expand or construct a new wastewater treatment plan. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. ~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. As detailed in the EIR, the project as previously proposed would have a solid waste disposal demand of 6,424 pounds per day. The change in solid waste based on the hotel and the removal of the Cinema Lofts and the 13,872 square foot retaiUrestaurant component is not expected to be significant. The identified daily capacity available at the Bowerman landfill is adequate to support the potential increase. Mitigation Measure U-1 -Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall • ensure that the building plans for the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials. Implementation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR will occur. Therefore, the EIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to utilities and service systems. ~ Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The solid waste generated by the hotel will not violate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. A trash enclosure is included on the northern side of the hotel. Mitigation measures were designed and included in the EIR to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. XIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Impacts to the environment were analyzed in the MacArthur Place South EIR. Due to the location of the project on a previously developed, urbanized site, no impacts to biological resources will occur. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 49 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 51 or endanger a fish, wildlife, or plant species. Therefore, the EIR, as addended, remains adequate and complete. 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, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The EIR stated that the project would contribute cumulatively significant adverse emissions to the South Coast Basin, which is already anon-attainment area. This impact is significant and adverse and cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance. The EIR also stated that the project would have cumulative impacts regarding transportation and traffic due to the uncertainty and issues regarding fair- share funding for mitigation measure T-6, regarding the construction of a two-lane metered on-ramp to the SR-55 freeway. Due to the uncertainty of implementation, cumulative impacts were considered for the year 2025. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the MacArthur Place South EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures have been provided in the MacArthur Place South EIR to reduce impacts. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the EIR. Resolution No. 2009-025 M a clr ~51~ l et:®`b o u t h EIR Addendum 52 • Conclusion This document constitutes the Addendum to the MacArthur Place South Final Environmental Impact Report SCH 200406 1 1 40 (EIR) as adopted and certified by the City of Santa Ana. This document complies with all relevant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards to determine if the EIR remains adequate to address the impacts resulting from the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164. Approval of the Addendum by the City will not require circulation of the document for public review. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164) The Addendum will be included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report. No changes or modifications are proposed to the original project that would require major revisions to the EIR. Additional mitigation measures are provided in the Addendum to reduce impacts from the project to a less than significant level. No new information of substantial importance or new significant impacts will result from the conversion of originally entitled uses described above to the hotel and the previously approved project consistent with CEQA Section 15064. Based on the analysis herein, the MacArthur Place South EIR remains adequate and complete for the project modifications discussed in this Addendum. The Addendum will require approval by the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission and City Council. In taking action on the Addendum the City, as Lead Agency, must consider the whole of the data presented in the MacArthur Place South Final EIR and this Addendum to the EIR. No additional approvals are necessary. Pursuant to CEQA §21166 and §15162, there is no evidence that the project or its underlying circumstances have changed in a way that exposes new or more severe impacts than those reported in the MacArthur Place South Final Environmental Impact Report as addended. Furthermore, there is no new information that indicates project alternatives or mitigation measures previously found infeasible are now feasible or have not been accepted and incorporated into the project. Therefore, reliance on the Final Environmental Impact • Report as addended will still provide the public and decision makers with all information necessary to evaluate the plan from an environmental perspectwe. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 51 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 53 Inventory of Applicable Mitigation Measures In adopting the Final EIR, the City's findings and resolutions contained 76 mitigation measures based on refinements and revisions made to the mitigation measures presented in the DEIR. The 76 mitigation measures were incorporated in the certified resolution. All mitigation measures and conditions will either be met in development or are a requirement of City ordinance. Each of these conditions, policies, and mitigation measures will be reviewed during the normal Site Plan review process. Additionally, uniformly applied policies and standards generated to ensure substantial mitigation of environmental effects are applied as conditions of approval or as routine steps in the development process. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been adopted as part of the approval process to ensure methods, timing, and responsible parties to monitor all mitigation measures. Further refinements in Mitigation Monitoring are hereby included in the MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum to provide more specific descriptions of activities/improvements to ensure no significant impacts from the proposed project will result. These clarifications are summarized below: Mitigation Measure AE-1- Prior to issuance of building permits the project applicant shall ensure that building plans for the proposed project shall include the use of non-reflective building materials to minimize light and glare impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 -During design and construction, the project developer shall incorporate features into the project that will minimize impacts from greenhouse gas emissions such as planting onsite trees as a means of providing carbon storage, promoting energy saving measures beyond Title 24 requirements and encouraging the use of Energy Star equipment and appliances. Mitigation Measure G-1 -During grading operations, the project applicant shall ensure special handling of on-site soils as required by the City of Santa Ana, due to the high moisture content of the soils, which is well above optimum moisture conditions. The City of Santa Ana shall monitor the grading contractor to ensure stabilization of the soils during grading prior to placing and compacting fill soils over wet subgrade soils, as recommended in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. Mitigation Measure H-1 -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that an FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been obtained for the relocated Cinema Tower. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA in their determination. Mitigation Measure N-1 -During operation of the hotel, the project developer shall ensure that truck deliveries to the hotel shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Delivery trucks shall not be permitted to idle in the parking lots or loading areas and shall be required to have properly maintained, factory-approved mufflers. Delivery truck drivers shall be encouraged to minimize acceleration and maintain reduced vehicle speeds while on-site. Mitigation Measure N-2 -During project construction for the hotel, the project contractor shall verify that structural designs and acoustical baffling are implemented to reduce noise levels ftom mechanical equipment (ventilation fans, air conditioning, and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems) to a level that complies with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards reproduced in the table below (and also reproduced in the EIR). Resolution No. 2009-025 M acP4~~ ~5Q l a>;8 ~o uth EIR Addendum 54 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Ordinance Standards • Noise Level That May Not Be Daytime Night Exceeded for More Than 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 10:00 pm. - 7:00 a.m. 30 minutes in any hour 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 15 minutes in any hour 60 dB(A) 55 d6(A) 5 minutes in any hour 65 d6(A) 60 d6(A) 1 minute in any hour 70 d6(A) 65 d6(A) Any time 75 dB(A) 70 d6(A) Source: Section 18-312 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Mitigation Measure U-1 -Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that the building plans for the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials. • • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 53 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 55 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 1. Project Tltle: Expanded Initial Study and Addendum to EIR for MacArthur Place South - SCN 2004061140 _ _ _. __.. 2. Lead Agency Name/Address: city of santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92702 3. Contact Person/Phone No.: _~_Vince Fregoso / 714.667-2713 4. Project Location: southeast Corner of Main St. and MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, California 5. Project Sponsor Name/Address: Nexus Development Companies 6. General Plan Designation: _____.__District_„_center 7. ZOning: Specific Develo ment 76) _._-- -_ --_-- ---___.__ .P _ _ (.. _ 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project involves the addition of a four story, 185-room hotel and the removal of the Cinema Lofts (10,000 square feet of commercial office use and 15 units) and 13,871 square foot retail building consisting of 8,580 square feet of restaurant space and 5,290 square feet of retail. The Cinema Towers building will be moved south of its previous location (analyzed in the EIR). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street in southeast Santa Ana. East of the site is the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), south and east of the site is the City of Irvine and the City of Costa Mesa is located to the southwest. John Wayne Airport is approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. Surrounding land uses include residential, office and commercial/retail. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. Resolution No. 2009-025 MacP4~ea~5R11e>;®~outh EIR Addendum 57 • Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by that project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as ind icated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Mineral Resources ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Noise ^ Air Quality ^ Population /Housing ^ Biological Resources ^ Public Services ^ Cultural Resources ^ Recreation ^ Geology /Soils ^ Transportation /Traffic ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance ^ Land Use /Planning Environmental Determination (to be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I 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 revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name • MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum Date For Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 55 of 95 58 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis" 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 Substantial Change from Previous Analysis" 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). 2. 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. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is a "New Significant Impact," a "More Severe Impact," or "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis." "More Severe Impacts" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If one or more entries are "New Significant Impacts" or "More Severe Impacts" when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "New Significant Impacts" or "More Severe Impacts" to "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Resolution No. 2009-025 Rt~~furff9lace South EIR Addendum 59 • Issues New Significant Impacts No Substantial Change from More Severe Previous Impacts Analysis I. Aesthetics -Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock ^ ^ outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ^ ^ surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day ^ ^ or nighttime views in the area? II. Air Quality -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be reli ed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan? ^ ^ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ^ ^ projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for ^ ^ which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ^ ^ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ^ ^ III. 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: i. 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? • Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ iv. Landslides? ^ ^ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ^ ^ c. Be located on a geologic unit 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? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building ^ ^ Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have solid incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or ^ ^ alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ^ ^ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably ^ ^ foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ^ ^ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites ^ ^ compiled pursuant to Government Code §659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. 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? Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 57 of 95 MacArth ur Place South EIR Add endum 60 No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues Impacts Impacts Analysis f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a ^ ^ safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ^ ^ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ^ ^ wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? V. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ^ ^ b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ^ ^ groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aqu'rfer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including ^ ^ through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including ^ ^ through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or ^ ^ planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ^ ^ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or ^ ^ redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ^ ^ flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ VI. La nd 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? VII. Noise -Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards ^ ^ established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ^ ^ 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 the project? Resolution No. 2009-025 MaclS~la~®~outh EIR Addendum 61 • ssues New Significant Impacts More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not ^ ^ been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ^ ^ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? VIII. Population and Housing -Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by ^ ^ proposing new homes and businesses) 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? IX. Public Services • 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 ration, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: a. Fire protection? ^ ^ b. Police protection? ^ ^ c. Schools? ^ ^ d. Parks? ^ ^ e. Other public facilities? ^ ^ X. 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 that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XI. Transportation/Traffic -Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic that 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?) 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 insubstantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due 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)? XII. Utilities and Service Systems -Would the project: 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? • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 59 of 95 MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum 62 No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues Impacts Impacts Analysis 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 that 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? f. Be 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? XIII. Mandatory Findings of Signrficance 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 that will cause substantial adverse ^ ^ effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Checklist prepared by CAA Planning on behalf of the City of Santa Ana. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (949)581-2888 Resolution No. 2009-025 Macll6~lab®~outh EIR Addendum 63 • Appendix A MacArthur Place Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation, April 1, 2009 ~J • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 61 of 95 4i CorporetePark,Suite 300 lrvine,CA 92606 949.660.1994 main 949.660:1911 fax www.urbanxroads.com April 1, 2009 Mr. Rob Eres NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1 MacArthur Place, Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707-2707 Subject: MacArthur Place Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation Dear Mr. Eres: INTRODUCTION Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter report documenting the trip generation evaluation and comparison between the currently approved MacArthur Place Specific Development Plan and the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment. This letter report summarizes the land uses and trip generation calculations for the currently approved MacArthur Place Specific Development Plan and the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment. Based on the subsequent analysis presented in this letter report, replacing the currently approved townhomes (15 dwelling units), office condominium (10,000 square feet), retail (5,350 square feet), and sit down restaurant (8,550 square feet) uses with an 185 room hotel and allowing for the optional (temporary) conversion of some condominium uses to apartment uses will result in a net reduction in trip generation for the project site. The analysis in this letter report is based upon the recently published Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) informational report Trip Generation (8'h Edition, 2008). The last published analysis for the subject project was a letter report entitled Trip Generation Evaluation for the Change in Project Description of the Hutton Center Residential Development Proiect (Urban Crossroads, Inc., December, 2004). CURRENTLY APPROVED AND PROPOSED LAND USES The MacArthur Place Specific Development Plan currently approved land uses include the following uses which are unchanged by the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment: Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 62 of 95 06674-04 Letter Report Mr. Rob Eres NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • April 1, 2009 Page 2 • Cinema Tower 150 condominium dwelling units (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 232) Uses which are proposed to be eliminated in the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment include: • 15 townhome (condominium) dwelling units (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 230) • 10,000 square feet of office condominium (single tenant) use (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 715) • 5,350 square feet of retail use (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 850) • 8,550 square feet of restaurant use (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 932) The proposed Specific Development Plan amendment would replace the uses being eliminated with a 185 room hotel (ITE code 312). Additionally, the Lake Towers 349 condominium dwelling units (previously analyzed as ITE land use • code 232) are evaluated under an optional alternative to accommodate high-rise apartment (rental) units, rather than high-rise condominium (purchase) units. Similarly, the Integral "Montage" project 276 condominium project (previously analyzed as ITE land use code 230) shall be modified to accommodate mid-rise apartment (rental) units, rather than condominium (purchase) units. CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The currently approved project trip generation has been recalculated based upon the actual adopted land uses and the most current ITE trip generation data. Table 1 lists the ITE Trip Generation report (8th edition) trip rates for the currently approved land uses, proposed land uses, and also the existing land uses that were present on the site at the time the project was originally entitled. The net project trip generation consists of the trip generation for the future land use minus the trip generation for the existing uses that were present at the time the project was entitled. The 8`h edition trip rates for the land use categories included in Table 1 are mostly unchanged compared to the previous 7th edition trip generation rates. The only categories with rate changes are ITE code 850 (AM and PM peak hour) and ITE code 932 (PM peak hour). • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 63 of 95 MacArthur Place Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation City of Santa Ana, CA (JN: 06674-04 Letter Repoli) ~+ URBAN CROSSROADS Mr. Rob Eres NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION April 1, 2009 Page 3 Table 2 summarizes the trip generation for the currently approved Specific Development Plan. As shown on Table 2, the currently approved Specific Development Plan project generates approximately 3,101 trip-ends per day with 412 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 302 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. These results have been compared to the last published data, which is included as Attachment "A" to this letter report. The minor changes in the approved project land use quantities and trip rates have very little effect compared to the last published data on the overall net project trip generation (one additional AM peak hour trip, the same PM peak hour trip generation, and 16 fewer trips on a daily basis). PROPOSED SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The proposed Specific Development Plan amendment will replace the office condominium, retail, restaurant, and 15 condominium townhome uses in the currently adopted Specific Development Plan with a 185 room hotel (ITE code 312). Additionally, the Lake Towers 349 condominium dwelling units will be converted to apartment units. Additionally, the analysis considers the effects of the potential change of the mid-rise condominiums (Montage by Integral) to apartments as an option. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment and compares the results to the trip generation for the currently adopted Specific Development Plan. As shown on Table 3, the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment project generates approximately 2,343 trip-ends per day with 329 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 197 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. These results have been compared to the currently adopted Specific Development Plan trip generation presented previously on Table 2. The proposed Specific Development Plan amendment will result in reduced trip generation for all time frames evaluated. The proposed Specific Development Plan amendment will generate 83 fewer trips in the AM peak hour, 105 fewer trips in the PM peak hour, and 758 fewer trips on a daily basis. Resolution No. 2009-025 Mac R~r ecific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation City of Santa Ana, CA (JN: 06674-04 Letter Report) ~ URBAN CROSSROADS Mr. Rob Eres NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • April 1, 2009 Page 4 CLOSING Based on the results of the trip generation analysis, the proposed Specific Development Plan amendment will result in reduced trip generation during all time frames evaluated. Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this analysis for your use. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 660-1994, x210, if you have any questions regarding this letter report. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal • CW:Ir JN: 06674-04 Letter Report Attachments 1~ u Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 65 of 95 MacArthur Place Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Evaluation City of Santa Ana, CA (JN: 06674-04 Letter Report) URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES ITE AM PM IAND USE CODE UNITSZ IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Residential Condo/Townhouse 230 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 Hi h Rise Res. Condo.(Townhouse 232 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Mid-Rise Apartment3 223 DU 0.09 0.21 0.3 0.23 0.16 0.39 4.68 Hi h Rise A artment 222 DU 0.08 0.22 0.3 0.21 0.14 0.35 4.2 Business Hotel 312 OCCUPIED ROOM 0.34 0.24 0.58 0.37 0.25 0.62 7.27 Movie Theater w/o Matines 443 TSF Nom° Nom Nom 5.79 0.37 6.16 78.06 Sin le Tenant Office Buildin 715 TSF 1.6 0.2 1.8 0.26 1.47 1,73 11.57 Su ermarket 850 TSF 2.19 1.4 3.59 5.36 5.14 10.5 102.24 Hi h Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.58 4.57 11.15 127.15 ' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. s DU =Dwelling Units, TSF =Thousand Square Feet s Daily trip rate based on PM peak hour rate and PM peak to daily relationship for High Rise Apartments ° Nom =Nominal, near zero U:~UcJobst 06600-07000~066001066741Exce6[06674-04.x1s)T 1 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 66 of 95 • TABLE 2 CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY t PEAK HOUR ITE AM PM LAND USE Code QUANTI UNITSZ IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Condominium Pro'ect 5 sto 230 276 DU 19 102 121 97 47 144 1,604 Lake Towers iii h-rise Condo's 232 349 DU 21 98 119 84 49 133 1,459 Cinema Tower Condominiums 232 150 DU 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Townhomes 230 15 DU 1 6 7 5 3 8 87 Office Condo's sin le tenant 715 10 TSF 16 2 18 3 15 18 116 Retail 850 5,35 TSF 12 7 19 29 27 56 547 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 8.55 TSF 51 47 98 56 39 95 1,087 Future Use Traffic Total 129 304 433 310 201 511 5,527 Internal Ca ture 5°/, 6 15 21 16 10 26 276 Future Use External Traffic Total 123 289 412 294 191 485 5,251 xistin Uses Demolished heater 20% utilization of 40 TSF)3 443 8.0 TSF 0 0 0 46 3 49 624 Restaurant (sports Grill)4 932 12.0 TSF 0 0 0 79 55 134 1,526 Existing Traffic Total 0 0 0 125 58 183 2,150 Net New Traffic Total (Future External -Existing.) 123 289 412 169 133 302 3,101 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. DU =Dwelling Units, TSF =Thousand Square Feet s Theatre utilization of 20% full occupancy at the time traffic counts were conducted. ° Sports Grill assumed to generate no AM peak hour traffic. U:1UcJobs\_06600-07000\066001066741ExceR[06674-04.xIsiT 2 • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 67 of 95 TABLE 3 PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PEAK HOUR ITE AM PM LAND USE Code QUANTI UNITSZ IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Condominium Pro'ect b sto 223 276 DU 25 58 83 63 44 107 1,292 Lake Towers Hi h-rise artments 222 349 DU 28 77 105 73 49 122 1,466 Cinema Tower Condominiums 232 150 DU 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Business Hatel 312 185 OCCUPIED ROOM 63 44 107 68 46 114 1,345 .Future Use Traffic Total 125 221 346 240 160 400 4,730 Internal Ca ture 5°Jo 6 11 17 12 $ 20 237 Future Use External Traffic Total 119 210 329 228 152 380 4,493 Existin Uses Demolished Theater 20°k utilization of 40 TSF s 443 8.0 TSF 0 0 0 46 3 49 624 Restaurant (Sports Grill) 932 12.0 TSF 0 0 0 79 55 134 1,526 Existing Traffic Total 0 0 0 125 58 183 2,150 Pro osed Pro ect Net New Traffic Total Future External - Existin 119 ' 210 329 103 94 197 2,343 Current! roved Protect Net New Traffic Total 123 289 412 169 133 302 3,101 DIFFERENCE Pro osed - roved) -4 -79 -83 -66 -39 -105 -758 ~ Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. s DU =Dwelling Units, TSF =Thousand Square Feet a Theatre utilization of 20% full occupancy at the time traffic counts were conducted. 4 Sports Grill assumed to generate no AM peak hour traffic. U~IUcJobs\_06600-070001066001068741Excel\106674-04.xls]T 3 Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 68 of 95 • ATTACHMENT A Urban Crossroads, Inc. • Trip Generation Evaluation Letter (December, 2004) • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 69 of 95 ll'N ~r, N ~ <~rYY '.'1... H~.:~, ~~Y y..< ~~" ~` URBAN cROSSr~osaos December 15, 2004 Mr. Dan Bott CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subject: Trip Generation Evaluation for the Change in Project Description of the Hutton Center Residential Development Project Dear Mr. Bott: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to present this supplemental analysis of the potential effects of ongoing refinement of the project site plan on the conclusions of the previously completed traffic impact analysis for the subject project. Based on our supplemental analysis, we believe that the findings and conclusions of the traffic study continue to represent a reasonable worst case scenario with respect to the proposed project. This conclusion is based upon a comparison of peak hour and daily trip generation for the revised project description to the trip generation of the subject project as presented in the previously completed traffic impact analysis. Therefore, no additional traffic study is recommended. Exhibit A presents the revised site plan. The revised project description states that ` the 5-story condominium (Integral project component) now includes 276 units. The Cinema Tower includes 154 high rise condominium units, and the Lake Towers high- rise condominiums will consist of 347 units. In addition, there are 14 residential condominiums associated with 10,000 square feet of single tenant office use, located immediately south of the Cinema Tower. The leasable square footage for non- -''F~ residential uses is 5,291 square feet of general retail uses, and 8,580 square feet for "'~"" restaurant uses. "} ~= Resolution No. 2009-025 '`"' ' ~ ~' , Page 70 of 95 ';:'. ,'.t~: 41 Corporate Park Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 p:949.660.1994 f:949.660.1911 "iti"" `~~- ~ urbanxroads.com s_~?t;S , Mr. Dan Bott CITY OF SANTA ANA • December 15, 2004 Page 2 Compared with the project description as analyzed in the traffic study report, the total residential unit count has decreased 43 units (from 834 units to 791 units). The restaurant use square footage has increased from 5,500 square feet to 8,600 square feet. The retail use square footage has decreased from 8,000 to 5,300 square feet. The additional single tenant office building includes a total of 10,000 square feet. The trip generation calculation for the refined site plan is based on the most recent trip generation resource report (Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Rates, ITE 7th Edition). This is consistent with the calculations presented in the previously completed traffic study report. Table 1 indicates the refined proposed site plan land use trip generation rates. Table 2 provides a trip generation summary for the overall site. As indicated on Table 2, the net project (the proposed project trips minus the • demolished existing land use trips) generates approximately 3,117 trip-ends per day with 411 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 302 vehicles per hour dunng the PM peak hour. Table 2 also presents the refined site plan trip generation in comparison to the previously published traffic study report trip generation estimates. Compared to the previously published trip generation, the current site plan daily traffic volume decreases by 44 vehicle trips per day. The PM peak hour volume decreases by 2 vehicles per hour, while the AM peak hour volume has increased by 23 vehicle trips per hour. This represents a 6% increase compared to the AM peak hour trip generation included in the published traffic analysis. Most of this increase is attributable to the increase in restaurant square footage in the proposed site plan. If a use similar to the restaurant use being demolished (National Sports Grill) is located at this site, no AM peak hour trip generation would be expected and the net result would be no increase in AM peak hour trip generation. Alternately, if the National Sports Grill was replaced by a new restaurant (consistent with existing zoning) that included a breakfast clientele, the AM peak hour trip generation would actually decrease (given the reduction from 12,000 • square feet to 8,580 square feet). Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 71 of 95 Mr. Dan Bott CITY OF SANTA ANA December 15, 2004 Page 2 Overall, the total trip generation changes for the refined project site plan are minimal compared with the previously published project description trip generation. The change (a slight increase in AM peak hour trip generation and decreases in PM peak hour and daily trip generation) are unlikely to result in any additional significant traffic impact for the study area. Therefore, no additional traffic study is recommended. Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this addendum to the traffic study. Please give us a call at (949) 660-1994 if you have any further questions. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal CW:MZ:ds JN:01446-12 Min Zhou, P.E. Associate Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 72 of 95 1~ u TABLE 1 REVISED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE ITE CODE QUANTITY UNITSZ IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Condominium ro'ect 5 sto condo 230 276 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.86 Lake tower hi h-rise Condominium 232 347 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Condominium ro'ect Cinema Tower 232 154 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Townhomes 230 14 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.86 Office condos sin le tenant 715 10 TSF 1.6 0.2 1.8 0.26 1.47 1.73 11.57 Restaurant sit in 932 8.6 TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.66 4.26 10.92 127.15 Retail 850 5.30 TSF 1.98 1.27 3.25 5.33 5.12 10.45 102.24 TABLE 2 REVISED PROPOSED OVERALL SITE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY' PEAK HOUR AM PM ITE CODE QUANTI UNITSZ IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 230 276 DU 19 102 121 97 47 144 1,617 232 347 DU 21 97 118 83 49 132 1,450 232 154 DU 9 43 52 37 22 59 644 Proposed Project Development 230 14 DU 1 5 6 5 2 7 82 715 10 DU 16 2 18 3 15 17 116 932 8.6 TSF 52 48 99 57 37 94 1,093 850 5.3 TSF 10 7 17 28 27 55 542 Internal Capture (5%) 126 -6 304 -15 432 -22 310 -15 198 -10 508 -25 5,545 -277 Subtotal 122 289 411 294 188 482 5,267 Existing Use Being Demolished' Theatre° 443 8.0 TSF 0 0 0 -46 -3 -49 -624 Restaurant (Sports Grill)5 932 12 TSF 0 0 0 -80 -51 -131 -1,526 NEW NET PROJECT TRIPS PROPOSED -DEMOLISHED EXIST 122 289 411 168 134 302 3,117 PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NET PROJECT TRIPS 97 290 386 176 128 304 3,162 DIFFERENCE NEW -PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 25 -2 23 -8 6 -2 -44 ~ Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003 z TSF = Thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units 3 From Existing Trip Generetlon Table. ~ Theatre utilization of 2g°6 full occupancy at the time traffic mounts were conducted. • s Sports Grill assumed to generate no AM peak hour tratfic. ReSOIUtIOfI NO. 2009-025 Page 73 of 95 u:wc.tobs~_oiaoowiaastE~~can[o~aas-iz.x~slTi rz EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN MA~AA'iNUR h'1D... _. .. .~_~' ~~._ -.~.__ ~, r;~ ;~-, ~_:,. -- {1. ,~.,.~.~ ~r r ~ ~_ ~., ~ cat5~~` Mtr+ii ~ nf-l~~i!r-.?~ - ~! AL -'yr n1 ,~ K .wi '~vw ~x~ 1 sa+ovon E ~.E ,.,3~ v, ~ PEDESTRIAN LEVEL S[TE PLAN ~ = -~+ ~~- liAacARTHUR PLACE-MASTER PLAN NExWS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13 QEGEMBER 2f104 HUTTON C~a Eg~~ I~~EVECUPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY, Santa Ana, California - 07446:041027 sp URBAN • Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-08 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-08 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of this conditional use permit. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review (DP No. 08- 81). 2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be . amended. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall provide a Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem valet parking will function. Included in this plan shall be a commitment on behalf the hotel operator to offer valet parking service on 24-hour basis to hotel guests. 4. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture. At a minimum, the project shall incorporate the amount and size of landscaping as shown on Sheet CSL1.1. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 5. Prior to submittal to building plan check, required notations shall be added to the plan to address Fire Department comments from site plan review memorandum dated December 31, 2008. • Exhibit B Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 75 of 95 Mitigation Measures 6. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy as required by the approved plans. 7. The following items must be included as exterior amenities for the development: Enhanced paving in the motor court, enhanced paving on the walkways, and a pool and spa. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 8. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided through all lots to establish pedestrian pathways throughout the development as shown on the approved Pedestrian Master Plan. The amenities to be provided along this pathway shall include decorative concrete and paving, accent lighting, and landscape planters as shown on the plans. The materials and design of the walkway is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. The improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. 9. Signage to direct customers and guests to the adjacent parking structure shall be provided. A directional sign plan needs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. Construction workers for the project shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that the building plans reflect the following information: outdoor lighting fixtures adjacent to exterior doors and within walkways and parking lots shall generate a minimum 1.0 foot candle level of light during normal operation hours. During non-operating hours, outdoor lighting fixtures shall generate no less than .25 foot candle level of light. All lighting shall be directed towards the interior of the project site. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans for the proposed project shall reflect the use of non-reflective building materials to minimize light and glare impacts. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Final Landscape Plan for the project shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. The Final Landscape Plan shall be based on the conceptual landscape plan included in the EIR. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 76 of 95 • 14. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Permits, the required landscaping for each building component of the project shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana Planning Department. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that an FAA "No Hazard" determination has been secured. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA. 16. During construction, the contractor shall be required to comply with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to suppress dust generated by construction operations. To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403, grading plans and demolition plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following notes: • All materials excavated or graded shall 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 periods of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. • • Internal roadways and project site entry and exit points shall be cleaned at the end of each day by the project developer. Dust and debris from construction activities that migrates or is carried onto MacArthur Boulevard or Main Street adjacent to the project site shall also be cleaned each day. • All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Haul trucks leaving the site shall have a minimum freeboard distance of 12 inches. • Construction equipment leaving the project site shall be wheel washed. • 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 manufacturer's specifications. • To the extent feasible, construction equipment shall use alternative clean fuels such as compressed natural gas equipment with oxidation catalysts. If alternative clean fuels are not feasible, gasoline powered construction equipment shall be used. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 77 of 95 Construction equipment operating on diesel fuel shall use particulate filters or low sulfur diesel. • To the extent feasible construction operations shall use electricity from power poles in-lieu of temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators. 17. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project developer shall identify to the City a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the name of construction relations officer and a telephone number. 18. During finish work, the construction contractor shall ensure the minimization of ROG emissions. Building plans for the project shall specify and require the use of pre-coated building materials, use of high pressure-low volume (HPL~ paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency, and use of lower volatility paint not to exceed 100 grams of ROG per liter. 19. During construction and grading activities, the developer's construction contractor shall comply with the measures set forth in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that airborne dust is kept to a minimum. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits and to the extent feasible, building plans for the proposed project shall reflect the use of the following measures. • Use low-polluting high energy-efficient appliances • Install solar panels on roofs to supply electricity for heating and cooling • Use double-paned windows to reduce thermal loss • Install automatic lighting on/off controls and energy-efficient lighting • Use light colored roofing materials in new construction to deflect heat away from buildings. 21. During grading operations, special handling of on-site soils shall be required due to the high moisture content of the soils, which is well above optimum moisture conditions. The City of Santa Ana shall monitor the grading contractor to ensure stabilization of the soils during grading prior to placing and compacting fill soils over wet sub-grade soils, as recommended in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that pile foundations are incorporated into the project design to mitigate the potential settlement hazards beneath the proposed buildings. Pile Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 78 of 95 • foundations shall be installed according to the recommendations provided in the project geotechnical report. 23. Prior to initiation of project grading, the project developer shall ensure that all existing utilities will be relocated, abandoned and removed, rerouted, or protected in coordination with the project developer and affected utility companies. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project construction, the project developer shall ensure that a Final Geotechnical Report on the project site is prepared. All recommendations from this Final Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that all structures on the site are designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions set forth in the Final Geotechnical Report and the Uniform Building Code in order to promote safety in the event of a seismic event. 26. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall determine and demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that the foundation piles for the project would not intrude into the Orange County groundwater basin. In the event the foundations intrude into the groundwater basin, the project • developer shall obtain approval and/or permits from the Orange County Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any measures required by these agencies will be incorporated into the final design and construction specifications for the project. 27. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall ensure that provisions set forth in the Final Geotechnical Report regarding dust control measures during site preparation, grading and construction are incorporated into the final construction specifications for the project. 28. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof to the City of Santa Ana of an NPDES permit from the RWQCB for on-site dewatering activities. 29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The developer will also submit the NOI and the project Water Discharge identification Number (WDIN) provided by the SWRCB to the City of Santa Ana City Engineer. 30. During all site preparation, grading and construction, the project developer shall ensure that the project contractor complies with all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit, the Drainage Area Management Plan • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 79 of 95 (DAMP), and the City's Local Implementation Plan (LIP). BMPs from the DAMP and the LIP will be implemented by the project contractors, as appropriate during site preparation, grading and construction. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall prepare a Final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of any grading activity. The project shall maintain the SWPPP on the construction site throughout the construction period. 32. During all site preparation, grading and construction, the project developer shall ensure that its contractor implements the provisions of the SWPPP. 33. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) based on the Final Grading Plan, to be approved by the City's Director of Public Works. The WQMP shall be consistent with the DAMP and shall contain provisions and BMPs for construction and operation conditions. 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall pay the City's drainage impact fee. 35. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall verify that structural BMPs have been permanently incorporated into project plans. Such BMPs shall ensure that pollutants from project-related storm water runoff are mitigated consistently with applicable state and local standards. 36. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a final drainage plan to the City identifying the exact size and location of drainage facilities. 37. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof of an NPDES permit from RWQCB to the City for onsite dewatering activities. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that any restaurant is fitted with grease interceptors to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. 39. Prior to building occupancy, to the extent possible, all equipment shall be enclosed within a building or separate structure. Where this is not possible, barriers may be necessary to shield the equipment from the existing and proposed residential buildings. Depending on the size and style of the equipment, silencers in the intake and exhaust ducts may also be necessary to reduce noise at the residential buildings to an acceptable level. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 80 of 95 • 40. Construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following note: "During demolition and construction, the contractor shall adhere to all City Noise Ordinance requirements to limit all construction activity, including equipment start-up, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. No construction shall take place on Sundays or federal holidays. 41. During construction, the contractor shall site all construction staging and storage areas away from sensitive receptors to the furthest extent possible. 42. During construction activities, the project developer shall ensure that all pile driving equipment shall be enclosed on all sides with an acoustical blanket barrier that provides a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 30. The height of the blanket enclosure shall be at least 20-feet. With the exception of points of access to the enclosure area, there shall be no openings or gaps in the enclosure, and all points of access are to remain closed during pile driving activities. Notwithstanding Mitigation Measure No. 67, pile driving shall not commence prior to 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a construction equipment staging plan to the City of Santa Ana for approval. • 44. Prlor to the start of constructlon activlty, the project developer shall post the name and telephone number of the construction relations officer on- site. 45. Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction, the project contractor shall provide to resident associations in the Sandpointe neighborhood, the Main Attraction Condominiums and the Pinnacle Apartments a project schedule indicating the type of construction activity and duration, construction staging areas and the name and telephone number of the construction relations officer. 46. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall coordinate any required relocation of fire hydrants on the property with Santa Ana Fire Department. Final approval from the Fire Department is required regarding location of hydrants on the project site. 47. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit building plans to the Santa Ana Police Department in order to ensure compliance with the City of Santa Ana's Building Security Ordinance. The Police Department must approve the building plans with regard to the Building Security Ordinance prior to initiation of grading. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 81 of 95 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall prepare a Mandated Security Plan, which would need final Police department approval. The plan is required to address issues such as onsite uniform security staffing, restriction of hours of operation for the parking garages, implementation of electronic security, mechanical surveillance, and compliance with the basic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall comply with Senate Bill 50 and pay applicable school impact fees. Currently, the Santa Ana Unified School District's adopted Fee Justification for residential development is $2.14 per square foot and $0.33 per square foot for commercial development. 50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall ensure that the appropriate park Acquisition and Development Fee and parkland dedication or in-lieu payments have been made. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a Construction Plan to Santa Ana Fire Department. The plan must be consistent with the Fire Department Fire Code requirements and must show that emergency access to the construction site is adequate. 52. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Santa Ana Fire Department that the proposed fire protection and life saving systems incorporated in the project are adequate. 53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit the final design of the project, including fire sprinklers system design to the Santa Ana Fire Department for approval. 54. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the restriping of the outside southbound through lane at the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower to a shared through and right turn lane. 55. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the restriping the shared through right-turn lane at Hutton Centre Drive and MacArthur Boulevard to provide an exclusive through lane and construct a second northbound right turn lane for the northbound traffic. 56. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall pay for the construction of a third eastbound through lane on Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 82 of 95 • MacArthur Boulevard between Hutton Centre Drive/Imperial Promenade and the SR-55 northbound on-ramp. 57. Prior to the issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the installation of a traffic signal at Hutton Centre Drive and Hutton Centre Loop. 58. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall pay for the construction of a fourth eastbound lane on MacArthur Boulevard between Hutton Centre Drive/Imperial Promenade and the SR- 55 southbound on-ramp. 59. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall contribute $200,000 for the City of Santa Ana to prepare a neighborhood traffic study to assess any intrusion of project traffic into the Sandpointe Neighborhood. If traffic intrusion is attributable to the project, corrective measures could include forced-turn channelization, semi- diverters, diagonal diverters and cul-de-sacs. 60. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall develop a parking plan in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana to ensure that parking needs are met. • 61. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits the project developer shall pay afair-share contribution for restriping a second eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower in order to achieve LOS D for 2025. 62. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with SCE to determine the exact location of all underground and overhead electrical facilities. All electrical facilities and associated structures to be left on the project site shall be protected from damage. 63. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall ensure that grading plans reflect the under grounding of utility lines serving the proposed project. 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Southern California Gas to determine the exact location of all underground natural gas facilities. All gas pipelines and associated structures to be left on the project site must be protected from damage. 65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Adelphia Communications to determine the exact location of all underground cable facilities. The developer shall protect all existing cable lines and associated structures to be left on the project site for damage. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 83 of 95 66. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with SBC Communications (formerly Pacific Bell) to determine the exact location of all underground telephone facilities. The developer shall protect all existing telephone lines and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. 67. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that construction-related waste generated on-site would be recycled wherever feasible as the first choice of disposal method, leaving the option of landfill disposal as a last alternative. The proposed commercial uses shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials into the design of the project. 68. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Water Division to determine the exact location of all existing underground water supply facilities and take action to prevent damage to these facilities to be left on the project site or interfere with their operation. The project developer shall pay their fair share amount for the necessary facilities to accommodate project-related water supplies. 69. Prior to issuance of building permits, the existing eight-inch sewer line along Hutton Centre Drive north of Sandpointe Avenue, shall be replaced with a new 10-inch sewer line. 70. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Waste Management on the type and location of facilities needed to provide solid waste disposal service to the project site. 71. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall perform soil testing to determine is soil to be excavated from the site will require off-site disposal. If the soil is found to be contaminated, it will be properly disposed of in compliance with California environmental laws, regulations and policies. 72. During the design and construction, the project developer shall incorporate features in to the project that will minimize impacts from greenhouse gas emissions such as planting onsite trees as a means of providing carbon storage, promoting energy saving measures beyond Title 24 requirements and encouraging the use of Energy Star equipment and appliances. 73. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been obtained for the relocated Cinema Tower. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA in their determination. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 84 of 95 • 74. During operation of the hotel, the pro~ect develo er shall ensure that truck 1 p deliveries to the hotel shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Delivery trucks shall not be permitted to idle in the parking lots or loading areas and shall be required to have properly maintained, factory- approved mufFlers. Delivery truck drivers shall be encouraged to minimize acceleration and maintain reduced vehicle speeds while on-site. 75. During project construction for the hotel, the project contractor shall verify that structural designs and acoustical baffling are implemented to reduce noise levels form mechanical equipment (ventilation fans, air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems) to a level that complies with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards. 76. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that the building plans for the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials. B. Police Department 1. A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the projects security including security personnel, surveillance equipment, and • hardware. The project will be required to have a minimum of four state licensed uniformed security personnel. One security officer will be required for each building, one for the podium level and one for the parking garage. 2. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum maintained one footcandle of light. 3. Existing surface parking lot must conform to the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing project's lighting be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 85 of 95 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2009-02 Variance No. 2009-08 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rp for to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of this variance. A. Planning Division The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review (DP No. 08-81). 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall provide a Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem valet parking will function. Included in this plan shall be a commitment on behalf the hotel operator to offer valet parking service on 24-hour basis to hotel guests. 4. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture. At a minimum, the project shall incorporate the amount and size of landscaping as shown on Sheet CSL1.1. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 5. Prior to submittal to building plan check, required notations shall be added to the plan to address Fire Department comments from site plan review memorandum dated December 31, 2008. Mitigation Measures 6. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy as required by the approved plans. 7. The following items must be included as exterior amenities for the development: Enhanced paving in the motor court, enhanced paving on the walkways, and a Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 86 of 95 Exhibit C • pool and spa. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 8. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided through all lots to establish pedestrian pathways throughout the development as shown on the approved Pedestrian Master Plan. The amenities to be provided along this pathway shall include decorative concrete and paving, accent lighting, and landscape planters as shown on the plans. The materials and design of the walkway is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. The improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. 9. Signage to direct customers and guests to the adjacent parking structure shall be provided. A directional sign plan needs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. Construction workers for the project shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that the building plans reflect the following information: outdoor lighting fixtures adjacent to exterior doors and within walkways and parking lots shall generate a minimum 1.0 foot candle level of light during normal operation hours. During non-operating hours, outdoor lighting fixtures shall generate no less than .25 • foot candle level of light. All lighting shall be directed towards the interior of the project site. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans for the proposed project shall reflect the use of non-reflective building materials to minimize light and glare impacts. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Final Landscape Plan for the project shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. The Final Landscape Plan shall be based on the conceptual landscape plan included in the EIR. 14. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Permits, the required landscaping for each building component of the project shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana Planning Department. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that an FAA "No Hazard" determination has been secured. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA. 16. During construction, the contractor shall be required to comply with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 to suppress dust generated by construction operations. To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403, grading plans and • demolition plans for the proposed project shall reflect the fol~~;~}p~,~s:2oo9-025 Page 87 of 95 • All materials excavated or graded shall 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 periods of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes. • Internal roadways and project site entry and exit points shall be cleaned at the end of each day by the project developer. Dust and debris from construction activities that migrates or is carried onto MacArthur Boulevard or Main Street adjacent to the project site shall also be cleaned each day. • All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Haul trucks leaving the site shall have a minimum freeboard distance of 12 inches. • Construction equipment leaving the project site shall be wheel washed. • 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 manufacturer's specifications. • To the extent feasible, construction equipment shall use alternative clean fuels such as compressed natural gas equipment with oxidation catalysts. If alternative clean fuels are not feasible, gasoline powered construction equipment shall be used. • Construction equipment operating on diesel fuel shall use particulate filters or low sulfur diesel. • To the extent feasible construction operations shall use electricity from power poles in-lieu of temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators. 17. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project developer shall identify to the City a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the name of construction relations officer and a telephone number. 18. During finish work, the construction contractor shall ensure the minimization of ROG emissions. Building plans for the project shall specify and require the use of Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 88 of 95 • pre-coated building materials, use of high pressure-low volume (HPL~ paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency, and use of lower volatility paint not to exceed 100 grams of ROG per liter. 19. During construction and grading activities, the developer's construction contractor shall comply with the measures set forth in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that airborne dust is kept to a minimum. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits and to the extent feasible, building plans for the proposed project shall reflect the use of the following measures. • Use low-polluting high energy-efficient appliances • Install solar panels on roofs to supply electricity for heating and cooling • Use double-paned windows to reduce thermal loss • Install automatic lighting on/off controls and energy-efficient lighting • Use light colored roofing materials in new construction to deflect heat away from buildings. 21. During grading operations, special handling of on-site soils shall be required due to the high moisture content of the soils, which is well above optimum moisture conditions. The City of Santa Ana shall monitor the grading contractor to ensure stabilization of the soils during grading prior to placing and compacting fill soils • over wet sub-grade soils, as recommended in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that pile foundations are incorporated into the project design to mitigate the potential settlement hazards beneath the proposed buildings. Pile foundations shall be installed according to the recommendations provided in the project geotechnical report. 23. Prior to initiation of project grading, the project developer shall ensure that all existing utilities will be relocated, abandoned and removed, rerouted, or protected in coordination with the project developer and affected utility companies. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project construction, the project developer shall ensure that a Final Geotechnical Report on the project site is prepared. All recommendations from this Final Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that all structures on the site are designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions set forth in the Final Geotechnical Report and the Uniform Building Code in order to promote safety in the event of a seismic event. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 89 of 95 26. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall determine and demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that the foundation piles for the project would not intrude into the Orange County groundwater basin. In the event the foundations intrude into the groundwater basin, the project developer shall obtain approval and/or permits from the Orange County Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any measures required by these agencies will be incorporated into the final design and construction specifications for the project. 27. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall ensure that provisions set forth in the Final Geotechnical Report regarding dust control measures during site preparation, grading and construction are incorporated into the final construction specifications for the project. 28. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof to the City of Santa Ana of an NPDES permit from the RWQCB for on-site dewatering activities. 29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The developer will also submit the NOI and the project Water Discharge identification Number (WDIN) provided by the SWRCB to the City of Santa Ana City Engineer. 30. During all site preparation, grading and construction, the project developer shall ensure that the project contractor complies with all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit, the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the City's Local Implementation Plan (LIP). BMPs from the DAMP and the LIP will be implemented by the project contractors, as appropriate during site preparation, grading and construction. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall prepare a Final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of any grading activity. The project shall maintain the SWPPP on the construction site throughout the construction period. 32. During all site preparation, grading and construction, the project developer shall ensure that its contractor implements the provisions of the SWPPP. 33. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) based on the Final Grading Plan, to be approved by the City's Director of Public Works. The WQMP shall be consistent with the DAMP and shall contain provisions and BMPs for construction and operation conditions. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 90 of 95 • 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall pay the City's drainage impact fee. 35. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall verify that structural BMPs have been permanently incorporated into project plans. Such BMPs shall ensure that pollutants from project-related storm water runoff are mitigated consistently with applicable state and local standards. 36. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a final drainage plan to the City identifying the exact size and location of drainage facilities. 37. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide proof of an NPDES permit from RWQCB to the City for onsite dewatering activities. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that any restaurant is fitted with grease interceptors to the size and capacity as designated by the City of Santa Ana Building Division. 39. Prior to building occupancy, to the extent possible, all equipment shall be enclosed within a building or separate structure. Where this is not possible, barriers may be necessary to shield the equipment from the existing and proposed residential buildings. Depending on the size and style of the • equipment, silencers in the intake and exhaust ducts may also be necessary to reduce noise at the residential buildings to an acceptable level. 40. Construction plans for the proposed project shall reflect the following note: "During demolition and construction, the contractor shall adhere to all City Noise Ordinance requirements to limit all construction activity, including equipment start-up, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. No construction shall take place on Sundays or federal holidays. 41. During construction, the contractor shall site all construction staging and storage areas away from sensitive receptors to the furthest extent possible. 42. During construction activities, the project developer shall ensure that all pile driving equipment shall be enclosed on all sides with an acoustical blanket barrier that provides a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 30. The height of the blanket enclosure shall be at least 20-feet. With the exception of points of access to the enclosure area, there shall be no openings or gaps in the enclosure, and all points of access are to remain closed during pile driving activities. Notwithstanding Mitigation Measure No. 67, pile driving shall not commence prior to 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit a construction equipment staging plan to the City of Santa Ana for approval. • Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 91 of 95 44. Prior to the start of construction activity, the project developer shall post the name and telephone number of the construction relations officer on-site. 45. Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction, the project contractor shall provide to resident associations in the Sandpointe neighborhood, the Main Attraction Condominiums and the Pinnacle Apartments a project schedule indicating the type of construction activity and duration, construction staging areas and the name and telephone number of the construction relations officer. 46. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall coordinate any required relocation of fire hydrants on the property with Santa Ana Fire Department. Final approval from the Fire Department is required regarding location of hydrants on the project site. 47. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit building plans to the Santa Ana Police Department in order to ensure compliance with the City of Santa Ana's Building Security Ordinance. The Police Department must approve the building plans with regard to the Building Security Ordinance prior to initiation of grading. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall prepare a Mandated Security Plan, which would need final Police department approval. The plan is required to address issues such as onsite uniform security staffing, restriction of hours of operation for the parking garages, implementation of electronic security, mechanical surveillance, and compliance with the basic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall comply with Senate Bill 50 and pay applicable school impact fees. Currently, the Santa Ana Unified School District's adopted Fee Justification for residential development is $2.14 per square foot and $0.33 per square foot for commercial development. 50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall ensure that the appropriate park Acquisition and Development Fee and parkland dedication or in-lieu payments have been made. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a Construction Plan to Santa Ana Fire Department. The plan must be consistent with the Fire Department Fire Code requirements and must show that emergency access to the construction site is adequate. 52. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Santa Ana Fire Department that the proposed fire protection and life saving systems incorporated in the project are adequate. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 92 of 95 53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit the final design of the project, including fire sprinklers system design to the Santa Ana Fire Department for approval. 54. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the restriping of the outside southbound through lane at the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower to a shared through and right turn lane. 55. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the restriping the shared through right-turn lane at Hutton Centre Drive and MacArthur Boulevard to provide an exclusive through lane and construct a second northbound right turn lane for the northbound traffic. 56. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall pay for the construction of a third eastbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard between Hutton Centre Drive/Imperial Promenade and the SR-55 northbound on- ramp. 57. Prior to the issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana, shall provide for the installation of a traffic signal at Hutton Centre Drive and Hutton Centre Loop 58. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall pay for the construction of a fourth eastbound lane on MacArthur Boulevard between Hutton Centre Drive/Imperial Promenade and the SR-55 southbound on-ramp. 59. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall contribute $200,000 for the City of Santa Ana to prepare a neighborhood traffic study to assess any intrusion of project traffic into the Sandpointe Neighborhood. If traffic intrusion is attributable to the project, corrective measures could include forced-turn channelization, semi-diverters, diagonal diverters and cul-de-sacs. 60. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the project developer shall develop a parking plan in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana to ensure that parking needs are met. 61. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits the project developer shall pay a fair-share contribution for restriping a second eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower in order to achieve LOS D for 2025. 62. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with SCE to determine the exact location of all underground and overhead electrical facilities. All electrical facilities and associated structures to be left on the project site shall be protected from damage. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 93 of 95 63. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall ensure that grading plans reflect the under grounding of utility lines serving the proposed project. 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Southern California Gas to determine the exact location of all underground natural gas facilities. All gas pipelines and associated structures to be left on the project site must be protected from damage. 65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Adelphia Communications to determine the exact location of all underground cable facilities. The developer shall protect all existing cable lines and associated structures to be left on the project site for damage. 66. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with SBC Communications (formerly Pacific Bell) to determine the exact location of all underground telephone facilities. The developer shall protect all existing telephone lines and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. 67. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that construction-related waste generated on-site would be recycled wherever feasible as the first choice of disposal method, leaving the option of landfill disposal as a last alternative. The proposed commercial uses shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials into the design of the project. 68. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Water Division to determine the exact location of all existing underground water supply facilities and take action to prevent damage to these facilities to be left on the project site or interfere with their operation. The project developer shall pay their fair share amount for the necessary facilities to accommodate project-related water supplies. 69. Prior to issuance of building permits, the existing eight-inch sewer line along Hutton Centre Drive north of Sandpointe Avenue, shall be replaced with a new 10-inch sewer line. 70. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall coordinate with Waste Management on the type and location of facilities needed to provide solid waste disposal service to the project site. 71. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall perform soil testing to determine is soil to be excavated from the site will require off-site disposal. If the soil is found to be contaminated, it will be properly disposed of in compliance with California environmental laws, regulations and policies. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 94 of 95 77. During the design and construction, the project developer shall incorporate features in to the project that will minimize impacts from greenhouse gas emissions such as planting onsite trees as a means of providing carbon storage, promoting energy saving measures beyond Title 24 requirements and encouraging the use of Energy Star equipment and appliances. 78. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Manager that the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been obtained for the relocated Cinema Tower. The project developer shall demonstrate compliance with any conditions imposed by the FAA in their determination. 79. During operation of the hotel, the project developer shall ensure that truck deliveries to the hotel shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Delivery trucks shall not be permitted to idle in the parking lots or loading areas and shall be required to have properly maintained, factory-approved mufflers. Delivery truck drivers shall be encouraged to minimize acceleration and maintain reduced vehicle speeds while on-site. 80. During project construction for the hotel, the project contractor shall verify that structural designs and acoustical baffling are implemented to reduce noise levels form mechanical equipment (ventilation fans, air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems) to a level that .complies with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards. 81. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall ensure that the building plans for the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick-up of recyclable materials. B. Police Department A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the projects security including security personnel, surveillance equipment, and hardware. The project will be required to have a minimum of four state licensed uniformed security personnel. One security officer will be required for each building, one for the podium level and one for the parking garage. 2. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum maintained one footcandle of light. 3. Existing surface parking lot must conform to the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing project's lighting be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 95 of 95