3 1
4 8
state, or federal agency when located within 500 feet of a public park, school, or a property used or zoned for residential purposes.
To buttress this new amendment, staff also proposes to create a new Section 41-683.6 (Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use) to require these types of businesses that do not have a CUP and are nonconforming to comply with development standards and CUP requirements when a business changes ownership, requires a new Certificate of Occupancy, or is in violation of any applicable federal, state, or local regulation for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, receives three noncompliant notices, or is in violation for a total of ninety (90) days in a one year period.
Professional, Business, and Administrative Office; Counseling Services; Medical Offices Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently does not provide a definition for “professional, business, and administrative office,” and zoning districts where the use is permitted utilize inconsistent terminology. Staff is proposing to create a new Section 41-127.5 to define “professional, business, and administrative office” and to amend the uses permitted sections of various zoning districts where the use is permitted to utilize consistent terminology and provide clarity.
Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently permits “counseling services” in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district subject to a CUP, but Chapter 41 does not provide a definition for the use. As such, businesses offering counseling services have attempted to operate in zoning districts where the use is not permitted under the impression that the use could be classified as a “professional, business, and administrative office” or a “medical office.” To provide clarity to prospective businesses, staff is proposing to create a new Section 41-44.6 to define “counseling services.”
Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently does not provide a definition for “medical office,” and zoning districts where the use is permitted utilize inconsistent terminology. The lack of a definition and utilization of inconsistent terminology, staff spends an inordinate amount of time providing members of the public and prospective business operators clarification on what business uses are categorized as a medical office and where the use is permitted.
Staff is proposing to create a new Section 41-121 to define “medical office” and to amend the uses permitted sections of various zoning districts where the use is permitted to provide consistency in terminology and clarity. The amendments would also permit medical offices operated by government, government-subsidized, not-for-profit, or philanthropic entities subject to approval of a CUP.
The above referenced definitions and amendment are needed to effectively carry out regulations and provide for their enforcement, without which the City would be in a precarious and untenable position when reviewing applications and making determinations to approve or deny a land use.
City Council
39 –
4 12/20/2022
ZOA No. 2022-07 – Urgency Ordinance
December 12, 2022
3 1
4 8
Electrified Security Fences
There have been near daily police and/or code enforcement-related incidents regarding transient populations trespassing on and causing damage to private, non-residential properties abutting railroad rights-of-way in Santa Ana. To address this pressing security matter, provide property and business owners another option to protect property from theft or vandalism, staff is proposing to amend Section 41-610.5 (Walls and fences) of the SAMC to permit electric fences only in the Light Industrial (M1) and Heavy Industrial (M2) zoning districts, respectively, on properties that abut a railroad right-of-way subject to the issuance of a minor exception. Additionally, staff is proposing a number of development standards such as minimum distance from residential properties, screening requirements, and accessibility requirements to ensure community compatibility, aesthetic considerations, and emergency responder access are addressed and maintained.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to sections 15061(b)(3) and 15061(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment. As a result Environmental Review No. 2022-123 will be filed upon adoption of this ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Ordinance for ZOA No. 2022-07
Submitted By:
Minh Thai, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager
City Council
39 –
5 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING VARIOUS
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 41 (ZONING) OF THE SANTA
ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOXIOUS USES,
MEDICAL OFFICES OPERATED BY GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED, NOT -FOR-PROFIT, OR
PHILANTHROPIC ENTITIES , AND DEFINITIONS FOR
OTHER OFFICE USES
WHEREAS, pursuant to SB 1000, the City was required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan Update due to a number of disadvantaged communities located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan Update on April 19, 2022, which included numerous goals, pol icies, and implementation actions associated with addressing environmental justice; and
WHEREAS, developing, adopting, implementing, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies can help address longstanding environmental impacts on communities; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Element action 3.2 states that the City will undertake updating the zoni ng code's development and operational standards to address incompatibility of industrial uses in close proximity to sensitive receptors; and WHEREAS, the absence of clear and consistent use of terms and definitions for professional, business, and administrative office, medical office, and counseling service is inconsistent with the goals expressed by S anta Ana Municipal Code (S AMC) Section 41-1 (Purpose) in that the City cannot effectively carry out regulations and provide for their enforcement without clear and enforceable terms and definitions; and WHEREAS, the absence of a conditional use permit requirement for medical offices operated by government, government-subsidized, not-for-profit, or philanthropic entities is inconsistent with the goals expressed by SAMC Section 41-1 (Purpose) in that discretion by the Planning Commission and City Council cannot be exercised to ensure that the location and operation of such facilities are compatible with the scale, character, and nature of surrounding properties and neighborhoods as specified in SAMC sections 41-1 (a), (b), (e), and (f); and
WHEREAS, AB 358 was adopted August of 2021, authorizing property owners that meet specified requirements to install and operate electrified fences on their property to protect and secure commercial or industrial property, but the absence of locally-adopted standards in the Zoning Code allowing and regulating el ectrified fences on private property poses a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of property owners and passers- by in Santa Ana, leading to potentially dangerous configurations of electrified fences that
City Council
39 –
6 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
do not meet local development standards that would otherwise ensure the safe design and installation of such fences; and
WHEREAS, there have been near daily police and/or code enforcement-related incidents regarding transient populations trespassing on and causing damage to private, non-residential properties abutting railroad rights-of-way in Santa Ana; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare due to the absence of regulations on noxious uses in close proximity to schools, parks, and residences; the absence of conditional use requirements on medical offices operated by government, government -subsidized, not-for-profit, or philanthropic entities in the Professional (P) zone; the lack of clear land use definitions that may work an adverse impact on existing communities, as well as negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety; and the lack of standards for the installation of electric fences on private property . These threats to public safety, health, and welfare justify adoption of this ordinance as an urgency ordinance to be effective immediately upon adoption by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Ana City Charter sections 415 and 417, based on the above findings, this Ordinance is declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and will become effective immediately if passed by the affirmative votes of at least two -thirds (2/3) of the members of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that there is an urgent need to adopt these regulations in order to address the current and immediate threats set forth above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as finding by the City Council.
Section 2. Section 41-44.6 (Counseling services) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41-44.6. - Counseling services.
A facility where personnel provide counseling services in individual or group sessions that focus specifically on mental development, recovery, rehabilitative vocational assistance, and employment preparation for the purposes of achieving independence, and /or integration in the workplace and community. For a practice providing counseling services specializing in substance abuse, this includes a facility that provides substance abuse counseling practiced by a licensed professional, on an outpatient basis, with or without the dispensing of medication onsite. “Counseling services” does not include “Medical office,” which is separately defined.
Section 3. Section 41-54.5 (Electric fence) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
City Council
39 –
7 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Sec. 41-54.5. - Electric fence.
"Electric Fence" and “Electrified Fence” shall mean any fence powered by an electrical energizer with characteristics outlined and defined in California Civil Code Section 835 used to protect and secure industrial property.
Section 4. Section 41- 121 ( Reserved) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-121. - Medical office Reserved.
A medical office is a facility providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, surgical, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors or dentists, and their support staff, to support the healing of humans, wherein such medical doctors and dentists are licensed. These facilities can be at health centers, individual doctor or dentist offices, and exclude practices providing counseling services specializing in substance abuse, homeless support services, and medical research laboratories.
Section 5. Section 41-127.5 (Professional, business, and administrative office) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41-127.5. - Professional, business, and administrative office.
A professional, business, or administrative office is an establishment providing direct, "over-the-counter" services or business services to consumers or clients (e.g., insurance agencies, real estate offices, travel agencies, utility company offices, etc.) and office-type facilities occupied by businesses providing professional services and/or engaged in the production of intellectual property.
Section 6. Section 41- 199.4 (Noxious uses) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41-199.4. - Noxious uses.
(a) Any use other than eating establishments listed in Section 41- 472 or 41-472.5 of this Chapter, regardless of the zoning district i t is established or proposed to be established in, that requires a permit from a regional, state, or federal agency to handle, store, emit or discharge regulated compounds, materials, chemicals , or substances that is located within 500 linear feet of a public park, school (K-12) as defined by Section 11362.768 of the Health and Safety Code, or property used or zoned for residential purposes requires a conditional use permit.
(b) The 500 linear foot distance shall be measured from the outermost boundary of the subject property to the closest point of any public park, school, or property used or zoned for residential purposes.
(c) The property owner or business operator of a business regulated by subsection (a) shall be responsible for notifying the City of any requirement to obtain a permit from a regional, state, or federal agency . Notification to the City must be made
City Council
39 –
8 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
prior to obtaining any permit from a regional, state, or federal agency for the business activities listed in subsection (a).
(d) A business regulated by this section shall be in compliance with all provisions established by this Code and all applicable federal, state, or local regulations and conditions established by regulating and permitting agencies.
Section 7. Section 41-313 (Uses permitted in P district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-313. - Uses permitted in P district.
The following uses are permitted in the P district:
(a) Professional, business, and administrative offices where no merchandise is sold.
(b) Banks, savings and loan offices, credit unions, and mortgage and finance companies.
(c) Travel agencies.
(d) Medical and dental offices.
(e) Art galleries, art and photography studios.
(f) Museums and science centers.
(g) Print and copy services.
(h) Pharmacies, limited to the dispensing of goods and merchandise related to health care only, and excluding drive-through facilities.
(i) Child care facilities.
(j) Non-freestanding commercial and service uses which do not exceed ten (10) per cent of the floor space of the building in which they are located and which are supportive of, compatible with, and integrated into the professional and business uses on the same property, excluding drive- through faci lities, and commercial uses which are open at any time between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m.
(k) Freestanding restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments, excluding drive- through facilities and excluding any eating establishment specified in section 41- 313.5.
Section 8. Section 41-313.5 (Uses subject to a conditional use permit in the P district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
City Council
39 –
9 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Sec. 41-313.5. - Uses subject to a conditional use permit in the P district.
The following may be permitted in the P district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit:
a. Convalescent hospitals, nursing homes, rest homes and extended care facilities. b. Hospitals.
c. Trade and professional schools.
d. Health clubs and gymnasiums.
e. Recreational or entertainment uses if carried on in conjunction with any of the uses specified in clauses (e), (f) and (k) of section 41-313. f. Ambulance and emergency medical response services.
g. Non-freestanding commercial and service uses which are open at any time between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m., provided that such uses also meet the standards for commercial and service uses permitted under section 41- 313, and further provided that such uses have less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of floor area.
h. Eating establishments open at any time between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m. and located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of residentially zoned or used property, measured from property line to property line. i. Banquet facilities, subject to development and operational standards set forth in section 41-199.1.
j. Banquet facilities as an ancillary use, subject to development and operational standards set forth in section 41-199.1.
k. Adult day care facilities.
l. Clubs, fraternities and lodges.
m. Bail bond uses, subject to development and operation standards set forth in section 41-323.
n. Churches and accessory church buildings.
o. Parking lots and parking structures subject to compliance with the requirements of Section 41-324.
p. Medical offices operated by government, government-subsidized, not-for-profit, or philanthropic entities.
Section 9. Section 41-365 (Uses permitted in the C1 district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-365. - Uses permitted in the C1 district.
The following uses are permitted in the C1 district:
(a) Retail and service uses.
City Council
39 –
10 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
(b) Professional, business, and administrative and business offices.
(c) Automobile parking lots and parking structures.
(d) Automobile sales, but excluding truck, trailer, tractor and boat sales.
(e) Churches and accessory church buildings.
(f) Mortuaries.
(g) Theaters.
(h) Hospitals, clinics, and sanitariums.
(i) Animal hospitals and veterinaries.
(j) Plant nurseries.
(k) Gymnasiums.
(l) Golf courses, both regulation and miniature, and driving ranges.
(m) Public utility structures, including electric distribution and transmission substations.
(n) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments, other than those specified in Section 41-365.5.
(o) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes.
(p) Childcare facilities.
(q) Service stations.
(r) Automobile servicing.
(s) Tattoo and/or body art establishments, subject to the development and operational standards set forth in Section 41-199.3.
(t) Medical offices.
Section 10. Section 41-375.1 (Uses permitted in the C1-MD district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-375.1. - Uses permitted in the C1-MD district.
The following uses are permitted in the C1-MD district:
(a) Retail and service uses, other than those specified in section 41-375.2.
City Council
39 –
11 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
(b) Professional, business, and administrative and business offices where no merchandise is sold.
(c) Medical and dental offices.
(d) Theaters and cinemas.
(e) Gymnasiums and health clubs.
(f) Travel agencies, with no embarking or disembarking of passengers.
(g) Art galleries and art and photography studios.
(h) Museums and science centers.
(i) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments other than those specified in section 41- 375.2, excluding eating establishments with drive- thru window service.
(j) Child care facilities.
Section 11. Section 41-424 (Uses permitted in the C5 district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-424. Uses permitted in the C5 district.
The following uses are permitted in the C5 district:
(a) Professional, business, and Aadministrative and professional offices.
(b) Retail and service uses.
(c) Automobile parking lots, but excluding the sale or storage of automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, or tractors, whether new or used.
(d) Churches, chapels, mortuaries, and theaters.
(e) Government buildings.
(f) Restaurants and cafes, other than those specified in Section 41-424.5.
(g) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes.
(h) Child care facilities.
(i) The printing, publishing, and circulation of a newspaper, including plant and office.
City Council
39 –
12 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
(j) Two-family dwellings not exceeding one (1) unit per three thousand (3,000) square feet of lot area, provided such units front on a secondary or local street.
(k) Gymnasiums and health clubs.
(l) Medical offices.
Section 12. Section 41-521 (Uses permitted in the C -SM district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-521. - Uses permitted in the C-SM district.
The following uses are permitted in the C-SM district:
(a) Retail and service uses.
(b) Professional, business, and administrative, and business offices.
(c) Public parking lots and parking structures.
(d) Animal hospitals and veterinarians.
(e) Gymnasiums, health clubs, and martial arts studios.
(f) Public utility structures, including electric distribution and transmission substations.
(g) Restaurants, cafes, coffeehouses, and eating establishments, other than those provided in section 41-522, excluding the establishment of drive through service facilities.
(h) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes.
(i) Child care facilities.
(j) Art galleries, museums and exhibit halls.
(k) Plant nurseries.
(l) Theaters.
(m) Furniture stores.
(n) Youth amusement rides ancillary to grocery, general merchandise and department retail store uses.
(o) Medical offices.
City Council
39 –
13 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Section 13. Section 41-683 (Discontinuance of nonconforming building or use) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-683. - Discontinuance of nonconforming building or use.
Except as provided in section 41- 683.5 and 41 -683.6, if a nonconforming use is discontinued, or if a nonconforming building is vacant, unused or unoccupied for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of this chapter, and a nonconforming building may not thereafter be used or occupied until it conforms in every respect to the provisions of this chapter.
Section 14. Section 41-683.6 (Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41.683.6. - Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use.
(a) If a nonconforming use of a building regulated by Section 41-199.4 requires a new certificate of occupancy for any reason other than a change in business name with no change in owner of the business, legal nonconforming status shall be lost and any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) If a nonconforming use of a building regulated by Section 41-199.4 is in violation of any applicable federal, state, or local regulation for a period of sixty (6 0) consecutive days, receives three noncompliant notices from a federal, state, or local regulatory agency in a one (1) year period, or is in violation for a total of ninety (90) days in a one (1) year period, legal nonconforming status shall be lost and any subsequent use of the building shall conform in every respect to the provisions of this chapter.
Section 15. Section 41-610.5 (Wall and fence requirements in the industrial and commercial zones) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41-610.5. - Wall and fence requirements in the industrial and commercial zones.
(a) In the industrial and commercial zones, walls and fences shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, and shall not exceed four (4) feet in height where the wall or fence extends into the required front yard or any required landscaped area.
(b) On any lot in a C1, C2, C4, or C5 district, a concrete block wall not less than five (5) feet in height shall be erected along any property line contiguous to any residentially zoned property, except that such wall shall not exceed the height limitations prescribed in subsection (a) of this section. This requirement may be waived by the planning commission upon a finding that the abutting property is in a period of transition to nonresidential use, or that, due to special circumstances, the wall would not promote the public health, safety, or welfare.
(c) Barbed wire is not permitted as part of a wall or fence except as follows:
City Council
39 –
14 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
(1) In the M1, M2 and LM districts: barbed wire is permitted subject only to the restrictions set forth hereinafter.
(2) In the C1, C2, C4 and CM districts: barbed wire is permitted only in a rear year or side yard which is not viewable from a public street and is subject to the restrictions set forth hereinafter.
(3) Barbed wire may not be used above the height limitations set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(4) Barbed wire may not be used as part of any wall or fence which is adjacent to property used for residential purposes or to property which is used as a school, church, park, or youth center.
(d) Electric fences shall only be permitted in the M1 and M2 districts subject to the issuance of a minor exception pursuant to Article V of this Chapter and shall meet the requirements set forth in California Civil Code Section 835 and below:
(1) Electric fences shall only be permitted on properties abutting a railroad right- of-way.
(2) Electric fences shall be located at least one hundred and fifty (150) linear feet from a property used for residential or public park use, or any property zoned for such a use, or schools (K -12) as defined by Section 11362.768 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Electric fences are only permitted in a rear or side yard which is not viewable from a public street.
(4) No electric fence shall be permitted, installed, or used unless it is completely surrounded and screened by a nonelectric wall that is at least six (6) feet in height. In no case shall the electric fence encroach into any required setback area.
(5) Electric fences may exceed the height of the surrounding nonelectric wall by up to 18 inches.
(6) Any portion of the electric fence extending beyond the height of the surrounding nonelectric screen wall shall be angled away from the property line at a 45-degree upward slope.
(7) Electric fences shall be set back from existing walls and fences in a manner so as to prevent accumulation of debris and to prevent unsafe conditions from forming in any resulting gap from the setback required by this subsection.
(8) In no case shall an electric fence exceed the maximum fence height established in subsection (a).
(9) Electric fences shall be installed to be as minimally intrusive as possible.
City Council
39 –
15 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
(10) No electric fence shall be energized during advertised business hours.
(11) Electric fences shall be identified by promin ently placed warning signs that are legible from both sides of the fence. At minimum, the warning signs shall meet all of the following criteria:
(A) The warning signs are placed at each gate and access point, and at intervals along the fence not exceeding thirty (30) feet.
(B) The warning signs are adjacent to any other signs relating to chemical, radiological, or biological hazards.
(C) The warning signs are marked with written warning or a commonly recognized symbol for shock, a written warning or a commonly recognized symbol to warn people with pacemakers, and a written or commonly recognized symbol about the danger of touching the fence in wet conditions.
(12) Electric fences equipped with monitored alarm systems may require an alarm use permit.
(13) Accessibility to emergency personnel and first responders must be maintained through the use of a knox box or other access feature as determined by the Orange County Fire Authority and the Santa Ana Police Department.
(14) The applicant and property owner shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Santa Ana harmless from all legal actions that may arise due to the operation of the electrified fence. The agreement shall be recorde d with the property and shall release the City of Santa Ana from all liability whatsoever.
Section 16. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibi lity it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a "project", as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 17. The City Council hereby declares, based on the findings set forth above, the urgency exists and that this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 18. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 19. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
City Council
39 –
16 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections , subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 20.
The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
AD
OPTED this _______ day of ___________, 2022.
_________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By: _________________________
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers: _________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers: _________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: _________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: _________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, __
____________, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-______ to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _____________________, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
D
ate: ______________________ ________________________________ Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council
39 –
17 12/20/2022
Human Resources
www.santa-ana.org/departments/human-resources/
Item # 40
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
December 20, 2022
TOPIC: Increase Transparency with City Labor Negotiations AGENDA TITLE:
Increase Transparency with City Labor Negotiations
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept informational report and provide direction to staff.
DISCUSSION
On October 4, 2022, the City of Santa Ana City Council (“Council”) directed staff to bring back options in regards to increasing transparency with City labor negotiations, specifically labor negotiations with the Santa Ana Police Officers Association (“SAPOA”).
Labor Negotiations between the City of Santa Ana (“City”) and its respective labor unions is governed by California Government Code (“GC”) §3500 (Meyers-Milias Brown Act or “MMBA”). The MMBA of 1968 established collective bargaining for California’s municipal, county, and local special district employers and employees. GC §3505 states in part, “The governing body of a public agency,…, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee organizations, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 3501, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.” Pursuant to the MMBA, each party must negotiate in good faith and to endeavor to reach an agreement on matters within the scope of representation. Labor negotiations between public municipalities, including the City, and labor unions (“labor,” “unions,” or “labor unions”) generally occur in private; that is, negotiations are closed from the public and the public does not view and/or opine on the City or labor’s proposal(s). At the onset and during the course of labor negotiations (with a respective union), the City’s labor strategy is discussed and determined during Council closed session deliberation and conveyed via the City’s labor representative to a respective labor union at the negotiation table. As a local municipality may be negotiating simultaneously with multiple labor unions, it is
City Council
40 –
1 12/20/2022
Increase transparency with City labor negotiations
December 20, 2022
3 1
4 5
essential to retain the confidentiality of the City’s respective labor strategy. However, there are options to increase transparency with labor negotiations. With that said, there are three options for ongoing and future labor negotiations, which include:
(1) Maintain the status quo for conducting labor negotiations. Specifically, the City’s labor representative receives Council direction during closed session deliberation and proposals between the parties are exchanged in a closed, non-public negotiation sessions;
(2) Adopt a set of collective bargaining rules between the City and its respective labor unions which negotiations are conducted in an open setting so that members of the public who wish to observe can do so; or
(3) Adopt a quasi-modified style of labor negotiations, in which the City’s labor representative would continue to receive Council direction regarding the City’s labor strategy during closed session deliberation and proposals between the parties would continue to be exchanged in closed, non-public negotiation sessions. However, the City would publically post (via the City website) the City and labor’s proposals and costing of said proposals, after said has been exchanged between the parties during the course of negotiations. This option is done at a few agencies in Southern California who have adopted transparency ordinances requiring the posting of proposals. In Orange County, this includes the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa.
In regards to option 2 above, the City would need to develop proposed rules for conducting labor negotiations in public, and the City would be required to meet and confer with each labor union over the proposed rules. Moreover, it would likely be an unfair labor practice charge to refuse to bargain with labor unions except for in a public setting.
In regards to option 3 above, the City is not required to meet and confer with the respective labor unions to publically post the City and labor’s proposals and costing of said proposals, after said has been exchanged between the parties during the course of negotiations.
Accordingly, if Council desires to increase transparency with City labor negotiations and modify how negotiations are currently conducted, staff recommends the Council adopt option 3 above for labor negotiations between the City and all respective labor unions (not solely the SAPOA). It is significant to note that option 3 can be implemented immediately for all ongoing and future labor negotiations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
City Council
40 –
2 12/20/2022
Increase transparency with City labor negotiations
December 20, 2022
3 1
4 5
Submitted By: Jason Motsick, Executive Director of Human Resources Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager
City Council
40 –
3 12/20/2022
Planning and Building Agency
santa-ana.org/departments/planning-and-building/
Item # 41
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
December 20, 2022
TOPIC: Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the Property Located at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue.
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment Application No. 2022-01 to Change the Zoning District From Professional to Light Industrial and Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 Appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to Permit the Establishment of Distribution Uses within an Industrial Building to be Constructed at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02 and upholding the determination of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 as conditioned, and
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rob Mitchell (Applicant), representing Greenlaw Partners (Property Owner), is requesting approval of two entitlements for the Garry Avenue Business Park, a 91,500-square foot industrial structure proposed at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval an Amendment Application (AA) to change the property’s zoning district from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1), and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow distribution uses. The request is being recommend for approval because the project has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties, will satisfy a growing need for warehousing and distribution services in the region, and will provide investment in an existing industrial/office area of the City.
City Council
41 –
1 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
Prior Planning Commission Action
At its regular meeting on August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission received a report and staff presentation, and public comments, on the subject application. During the public hearing, representatives of the adjacent property at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue spoke in opposition to the project, raising concerns about the potential impacts of truck traffic between the two properties. To provide the applicant sufficient time to propose solutions limiting truck traffic between the two properties, the Planning Commission continued the item to the regular meeting on October 10, 2022, from the meetings of August 22nd and September 26 th of 2022. After receiving a staff presentation and public comments regarding the changes to the project, the Commission voted unanimously to 1) adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and 2) to forward Amendment Application No. 2022-01 to the City Council with a recommendation that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the zone change.
Appeal Applications
On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association, filed respective appeal applications, Appeal Nos. 2022-01 and 2022-02, respectively, pertaining to the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, or modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
DISCUSSION
Table 1: Project and Location Information
Item Information
Project Address and
Council Ward
1700-1740 East Garry Avenue – Ward 4
Nearest Intersection Garry Avenue and Pullman Street
Existing Proposed
General Plan Designation Industrial/Flex (FLEX) - 3 Industrial/Flex (FLEX) – 3 (no change)
Zoning Designation Professional (P)
(inconsistent with General
Plan)
Light Industrial (M1)
(consistent zoning with General
Plan)
North Professional OfficesSurrounding Land Uses
East Professional Offices
City Council
41 –
2 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
Item Information
South Vacant (Alton Avenue right-of-way) and
Industrial
West Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway
Site Size 5.13 acres
Existing Site Development Developed with three professional office buildings containing a total of 105,558 square feet, constructed between 1972 and 1974
Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a zone change and CUP Development Standards Section 41-471 et seq.Zoning Code Sections Affected Uses Section 41-472.5 (i)
Project Description
The applicant is requesting to demolish three office buildings with a total of 105,558 square feet to construct a 91,500-square foot, 43.5-tall industrial building for warehousing and distribution purposes. Of the total square footage, 81,500 square feet will be used for warehousing and distribution activities, and 10,000 square feet will be used for supportive/ancillary office areas. A total of 10 loading docks will be provided at the rear (south) portion of the building. The building has been designed to allow the construction of future demising wall to create two tenant spaces.
In addition to the new structure, the site will be improved with new landscaping, paving, onsite parking, and improvements to the public right-of-way. The improvements include onsite landscaping and a landscape edge along the SR-55 Freeway that takes into account the freeway’s future widening, scheduled to begin in 2022. In addition, the project site will provide 145 onsite parking spaces, an onsite employee amenity area, enhanced paving at driveway entrances, new curb and gutter, street lights, and paving along the project frontage on Garry Avenue. Although not required, the project will provide an onsite walkway for pedestrians along the project frontage.
The design of the structure is contemporary, with exterior finishes that would enhance the building’s presence along the SR-55 Freeway. The building will contain a mixture of materials, including performance vision glass, metal awnings, and concrete panels painted in white, various shades of tan and brown, and soft green hues. The building’s elevations have been designed to allow for placement of future wall signage to ensure compliance with applicable SAMC requirements. The project is intended to be constructed in a single phase.
City Council
41 –
3 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
Project Analysis
Table 2: Conformance to Light Industrial (M1) Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided
Building Height Unlimited if in Height District II Complies; 43.5 Feet Minimum Lot Size and
Street Frontage
12,000 square feet size and
100 feet of street frontage
Complies; 223,463 square
feet and 330 feet
10 feet if along a non-arterial
roadway
Complies; 26 feet providedSetbacks
None alongside/rear property
lines
Complies; 10-foot landscape
buffer provided at east, south,
and west property lines
Parking 1 space per 1,000 square feet
for warehouses with
distribution services
Complies; 92 parking spaces
required and 145 parking
spaces provided. Of these, the
developer will construct 8
spaces for use by the adjacent
property, to be accessible via
a recorded easement, to
ensure ongoing compliance
with SAMC parking
requirements
Landscaping Minimum 5-foot landscape
strip along non-arterial
roadways, and Minimum 10-
foot landscape strip where
abutting non-industrial
properties
Complies; 26 feet provided
along Garry Avenue and 10
feet provided along east,
south, and west property lines
Screening Minimum 8-foot high wall
required where loading
activities occur
Complies; 10-foot high wall
proposed at south property
line to screen loading docks
from Alton Avenue right-of-
way
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum 3.0 Complies; 0.43 Proposed As shown in Table 2 above, the proposed project meets the development standards of the proposed M1 zoning district designation for which a change in land use classification from Professional to Manufacturing is being sought. Additionally, the project and site plan have been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties by placing the building’s loading docks to face south toward the vacant Alton Avenue right-of-way to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto adjacent developed properties. The site plan, as designed, would continue to meet development standard of the M-1 zone if Caltrans builds the Alton Avenue bridge over the SR-55 Freeway by providing a solid screen wall with 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the freeway, which will allow for mature trees,
City Council
41 –
4 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
shrubs, and groundcover to be maintained long-term along the westerly (freeway- adjacent) property line.
Lastly, the project site is in an area identified by the General Plan for industrial uses, pursuant to the Industrial/FLEX land use designation. Vehicles and trucks entering and departing from the project site will not travel through any neighborhoods containing sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, or parks. The new General Plan also designates surrounding properties Industrial/FLEX, and Garry Avenue and Pullman Street provide direct access to the SR-55 Freeway by way of the Dyer Road interchange, a driving distance of half a mile (0.50 miles).
Amendment Application
The subject site is zoned Professional (P). The development standards pertaining to the Professional zoning district would render the project unfeasible, as warehousing and distribution uses are prohibited by the P zoning district. Approval of an amendment application to change the zoning district to Light Industrial (M1) is required for the project.
The General Plan identifies on Table LU-A-1 that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The project has been designed to conform to all applicable standards of the M1 zoning district.
Although warehousing uses are permitted by-right in the M1 zoning district, distribution uses require approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission.
The zoning district designation of M1 enables the applicant to request the required CUP application to permit or conditionally permit the proposed distribution use.
Moreover, the proposed M1 zoning district designation is consistent with the new Industrial/FLEX General Plan Land Use Element designation for the site. This land use designation by the General Plan encourages developments that provide context appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. The building has been designed to feature taller height and contemporary finishes to ensure it remains aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area, even as adjacent properties may redevelop with new industrial or mixed-use office, industrial, and/or research and development uses.
Conditional Use Permit
CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial.
City Council
41 –
5 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
To operate a warehouse and distribution facility, the project requires approval of a CUP pursuant to Section 41-472 (i) of the SAMC. Approval of the CUP would be consistent with the General Plan and would not be injurious or detrimental to surrounding properties.
As analyzed in previous sections of this report, the development has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties and comply with all applicable development standards for the M1 zoning district. In addition, the project site is located within an area that is not near sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks.
Moreover, access to the SR-55 Freeway is provided at the Dyer Road interchange, by way of Garry Avenue and Pullman Street, a distance of less than 0.50 driving miles.
Lastly, the loading docks have been positioned at the south of the building in order to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto surrounding properties.
Approval of the CUP and amendment application would also be consistent with various goals and policies of the General Plan as follow:
•Goal LU-2: Land Use Needs – Provide a balance of land uses that meet Santa Ana’s diverse needs.
oPolicy LU- 2.1 Employment Opportunities – Provide a broad spectrum of land uses and development that offer employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana residents.
oPolicy LU-2.6 Encourage Investment – Promote rehabilitation of properties and encourage increased levels of capital investment to create a safe and attractive environment.
oPolicy LU-2.7 Business Incubator. Support land use decisions that encourage the creation, development, and retention of businesses in Santa Ana.
•Goal LU-3: Compatibility of Uses – Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods and districts.
oPolicy LU-3.4 Compatible Development – Ensure that the scale and massing of new development is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding built environment.
oPolicy LU-3.7 Attractive Environment – Promote a clean, safe, and creative environment for Santa Ana’s residents, workers, and visitors. oPolicy LU-3.8 Sensitive Receptors – Avoid the development of industry and sensitive receptors in close proximity to each other that could pose a hazard to human health and safety due to the quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials utilized, or the hazardous waste an operation may generate or emit.
•Lastly, the amendment application is consistent with the General Plan Appendix A, Table LU-A-2. Interim Industrial Flex Uses for the M-1 that allows warehousing.
Conditions of approval address construction-related and ongoing operational impacts that could result from the project, including the requirement to install the height-restriction bars
City Council
41 –
6 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
limiting truck traffic described in the Executive Summary portion of this report. Those conditions are attached as Exhibit A to the CUP resolution.
Appeal Applications
Pursuant to Section 41-645 an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission can be made by an interested party, individual or group. Two appeal applications were received appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14.
Appeal No. 2022-01: Molly Greene on Behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER)
The SAFER appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision based on lack of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to prepare a supplemental or tiered EIR for the project.
SAFER’s appeal states that the preparation of an exemption pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines fails to provide evidence to support the Exemption Checklist’s findings that the project will not involve environmental effects that: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. Specifically, SAFER’s appeal states that the project could have significant air quality impacts, health impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, therefore requiring additional CEQA analysis under Section 15183.
The City has evaluated the project in full compliance with the provisions of CEQA. After a thorough evaluation and preparation of an initial study checklist, the City prepared an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” As detailed in the Environmental Impact section of this report, the project was fully evaluated to determine if there are any project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and none were subsequently determined. Therefore, the Section 15183 exemption prepared for the project is the appropriate form of
City Council
41 –
7 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
environmental review. A complete response to SAFER’s appeal is provided as Exhibit 13 to this report.
Appeal No. 2022-02: Melinda Luthin on Behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association The Garry Plaza Office Park Association appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision based on 21 factors that center largely on the issues of the Planning Commission public hearing and action to approve the CUP, existing easements on site, General Plan and zoning consistency, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) conformance. During its regular meeting on October 10, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the item in accordance with all SAMC and state requirements, after which it approved the CUP and recommended City Council approval of the Amendment Application. The Planning Commission packet prepared for the project contained all necessary information for the Planning Commission to evaluate the applicant’s request. The issue of the onsite easements, also raised by the appeal, has been thoroughly evaluated and is analyzed in detail in Exhibit 15 attached to this report. The only cross-property easement between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east is a general, private easement for unspecified reciprocal ingress and egress and is therefore a civil matter between the two parties to resolve; to support this, a condition of approval on the CUP resolution requires that any reciprocal easements be modified or quitclaimed as needed prior to building permit issuance.
Moreover, the project has been fully evaluated using the existing FLEX land use designation in the General Plan and using the proposed M1 zoning district designation.
The proposed M1 zoning district designation will bring the site into consistency with the FLEX land use designation, and the project will conform to development standards prescribed by the M1 zoning district. Lastly, as described in the Environmental Impact section of this report and elaborated on in Exhibit 13, the project was fully evaluated for CEQA conformance, and the exemption prepared pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines is the required form of analysis for the proposed project.
A full response to the 21 claims made in Appeal No. 2022-02 is provided as Exhibit 15, attached to this report.
Public Notification and Community Outreach
Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and office uses within the 1,000-foot radius.
In addition to the standard notification requirements, the project is subject to community engagement requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 2-153). At the time the application was submitted, the Sunshine Ordinance required only one community
City Council
41 –
8 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
meeting; however, the applicant held two communities in order to provide ample public input opportunities to surrounding property owners. Both meetings were conducted virtually due to the ongoing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic at the time.
The first community meeting was held July 8, 2021. Ten members of the community attended and posted questions relating to construction impacts and the site plan design.
Because of this meeting, the original site plan was rotated 90 degrees clockwise to orient the loading docks from facing east to facing south, to minimize impacts onto properties to the north and east of the site. The second community meeting was held October 5, 2021, during which 11 members of the community attended and expressed satisfaction with the revised site plan and posed questions about traffic control, site screening, and construction impacts. Materials from both community meetings are included with this report as Exhibit 11, and all materials were published to the project’s webpage on the City’s website at santa-ana.org/garry-avenue-business-park.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet, and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR).
As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and PRC Section 21083.3(b)). The State CEQA Guidelines further state that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards […] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c)).” The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the certified
City Council
41 –
9 12/20/2022
Garry Avenue Business Park Amendment Application, Appeal Applications, and Conditional Use Permit – 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue December 20, 2022
3 0
4 2
GPU EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.
The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1.
The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. The GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. The Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of this report. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Amendment Application Ordinance
2. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View
4. Site Photo
5. Site Plan
6. Floor Plan
7. Landscape Plans
8. Building Elevations
9. Renderings
10.Environmental Analysis and Exemption
11.Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Materials
12.Molly Greene (SAFER) Appeal No. 2022-01
13.City Response to Molly Greene (SAFER) Appeal No. 2022-01
14.Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02
15.City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02
Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager
City Council
41 –
10 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA APPROVIN G AMENDMENT
APPLICATION NO. 2022-01 AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700, 1720,
AND 1740 EAST GARRY AVENUE (APN 430- 171-07)
FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M1)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. Rob Mitchell (“Applicant”) , representing Greenlaw Partners (“Property Owner”) is requesting approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2022-01 to change the zoning designation of the property located at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue (APN 430 -171-07) from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1) in order to facilitate construction of a new, 91,500-square foot industrial warehouse and distribution building.
B. Chapter 41, Article I, Division 1, Section 41 -1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes that because of the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land; and regulating the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open spaces, the City is divided into land- use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement . The regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City . T he City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time.
C. The entire Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of an existing 105,558 square foot office development consisting of three buildings constructed between 1972 and 1974; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a 91,500- square foot warehouse and distribution building with ancillary/supportive office spaces and mezzanines, and associ ated site and public -right-of-way improvements ; (3) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to allow the use of the building as a distribution center ; and (4) approval of Amendment
City Council
41 –
11 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Application No. 2022- 01 to change the site’s zoning designation from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1).
D. The a pplicant has demonstrated compliance with all requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance codified at Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2 -153, including public notification and hosting of required community meeti ngs.
Materials resulting from the meetings were subsequently posted to the City’s webpage for the project.
E. On August 22, 2022, t he Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council a dopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022 -01. Following information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to its regular meeting on September 26, 2022, after which the project was continued to its regular meeting on Octo ber 10, 2022. During said October 10, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01.
F. On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park A ssociation, filed respective appeal applications, Appeal Nos. 2022- 01 and 2022 -02, respectively, for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the SAMC. The Conditional Use Permit applicat ion and two appeal applications are subject to concurrent City Council consideration with this Amendment Application.
G. The City Council has reviewed applicable general plan policies and has determined that this proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the General Plan. The General Plan identifies on Table LU -A-1 that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX-3 area is M1. The subject site is designated by the General Plan Land Use Element as FLEX -3. This land use designation by the General Pl an encourages developments that provide context appropriate development in areas with existing industrial uses. The building has been designed to feature taller height and contemporary finishes to ensure it remains aesthetically compatible with the surroun ding area, even as adjacent properties may redevelop with new industrial or mixed- use office, industrial, and/or research and development uses. The project has been designed to conform to all applicable standards of the M1 zoning district.
City Council
41 –
12 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
H. The City Council, prior to taking action on this ordinance, held a duly noticed public hearing on December 20, 2022.
I. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the R equest for Council Action dated December 20, 2022, accompanying this matter.
J. For th e reasons contained herein, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2022- 01 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code; thus changing the zoning district is found to be cons istent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare.
Section 2. The Amendment Application consists of amendments to the Zoning Map, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
S ection 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the analysis performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Environmental Review No. 2021- 54). Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is exempt from further review. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet , and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants, are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR ). A rez oning that is consistent with an adopted general plan falls within this exemption.
(A) As set forth in CEQA G uidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site .” The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards . . . then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c).
(B) The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if its development density is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved par cel in the general plan for which an EIR has been certified, and the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan . CEQA
City Council
41 –
13 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Guidelines section 15183(i)(2). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.
(C) The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX -3 area is M1. The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, and wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. T he GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project and identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures.
(D) Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made:
1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX -3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Sta ndard of M -1 (light Industrial zone). The M -1 zone does not have density requirements.
2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects . The subject property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects.
In addition, as explained further in t he prepared Exemption Checklist, project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project , could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality , cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
3. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build -out of the GPU.
The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated.
4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the prepared Exemption
City Council
41 –
14 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Checklist, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR.
5. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project’s conditions of approval. (E) The Project therefore qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and C EQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of the staff report accompanying this Ordinance . Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project.
Section 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and two appeal applications are subject to concurrent City Council consideration with this Amendment Application.
Section 5. A n amended Sectional District Map, showing the above described changes in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
Section 6. T he City Council of the City of Santa Ana , after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves A mendment Application No. 2022 -01. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 10 , 2022, the Request for Council Action dated December 20, 2022, and exhibits attached hereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 7. I
f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted t his ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
S
ection 8. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 9. The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
ADOPTED this ____ day of ________, 2022.
City Council
41 –
15 12/20/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
_______________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ___________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ___________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Cler
k of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS - _____________to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on __________________, 2022 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
D
ate: ____________ ____________________________ Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council
41 –
16 12/20/2022
A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST. R2 TWO- FAMILY RESIDENCE - B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE - OZ OVERLAY ZONE C1 - MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUM DIST. M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER O OPEN SPACE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT - HD2 HEIGHT DISTRICT II C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN
CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL R1 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE OZ1 METRO EAST OVERLAY ZONE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT - PRD
C it y o f Sa n t a A n a , C a l if o r n ia
Z O N IN G D IST R IC T S
DEEREAV
BNSF RR
BNSF RR
HOTEL TERRACE DR
CARNEGIEAV
CATHERINE WY
WILLIS ST
ALTON PKWY
RICOH PZ
DAIMLER ST
BLAIR AV
BROOKHOLLO
W
DR
RICOH PZ
BIRTCHER DR
DAIMLER ST
BR O OKHOLLOW
DR
UP RR
B
NSF
RR
PULLMAN ST
GARRY AV
PULLMAN ST
BNSFRR
UP RR
PULLMAN
ST
BROOKHOLLOW DR
BR OOKHOLLOW
DR
TECH
CENTER
D
R
REDHILLAV
S
GRAND
AV
E DYER RD
EWARNE
RAV
C5
C5
M1
M1
M1
M1M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M2
O
O
O
O
O
O
P
P
P
SD12
SD12
SD63
SD64
SD8
SD88
SD96
M1
P
M1
N/A N/A N/A
29-5-9 N/AN/A
29-5-9
30-5-9
30-5-9
N/A
N/A
30-5-9
Exhibit:
Print Date: 8/16/2022
Sectional District Map: IRS-9
I
A
City Council
41 –
17 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NOS. 2022-
01 AND 2022-02 AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION
OF THE PLANNING COMM ISSION TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT NO. 2022 -14 AS
CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A DISTRIBUTION FA CILITY
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700, 1720, AND 1740
EAST GARRY AVENUE (APN 430-171-07)
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. Rob Mitchell (“Applicant”) , representing Greenlaw Partners (“Property Owner”) is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14 to allow a warehouse distribution facility at the property located at 1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue (APN 430-171-07).
B. Concurrently, the Applicant is requesting approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2022 -01 to change the zoning designation of the property from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1) in order to facilitate construction of the subject 91,500-square foot industrial warehouse and distribution building.
C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41- 472.5(i), a Conditional Use Permit is required for distribution facilities in the M1 zoning district within the City of Santa Ana.
D. On August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14 a pproving the establishment of a distribution facility at the subject property . Following information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to its regular meeting on September 26, 2022, after which the project was continued to its regular meeting on October 10, 2022.
During said October 10, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 and to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01.
E. On October 18, 2022 and on October 19, 2022, appellants Molly Greene with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and Melinda Luthin with Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Garry Plaza Office Park Association, filed respective appeal
City Council
41 –
18 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
applications, A ppeal Nos. 2022- 01 and 2022 -02, respectively, for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 645, the City Council is authorized to review appeals of Planning Commission decisions and may, after holding a public hearing, affirm, revers e, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by Chapter 41 of the SAMC. To support the City’s recommendation to deny the appeal applications and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14, the City prepared a response to the comments contained within both appeals, attached to the Request for Council Action (RFCA) staff report, dated December 20, 2022, contained within the report and attached thereto as Exhibit 13.
F. On December 20, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and on Appeal Nos. 2022- 01 and 2022-02 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14.
G. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this CUP pursuant to SAMC Sections 41-638 and 41-645, have been established for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 to allow a new warehousing and distribution facility within the M1 zoning district:
1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well -being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use will contribute to the general well-being of the community by providing a use that satisfies a growing demand for warehousing and distribution activities in the region, following the effects of the Covid- 19 pandemic. The site plan and building have been designed to minimize
impacts on surrounding properties and to enhance the
surrounding community with a building and site that will provide elevated architecture, landscaping, site, and right -of- way improvements.
2. That the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
The proposed warehouse and distribution facility at this location w ould not be detrimental to persons residi ng or working in the area as t he subject site is located within a professional office and light industrial area and not
immediately adjacent to residential uses, schools, or parks .
The nearest residential property is 0.43 miles (2,290 feet) due north from the subject site, across the Costa Mesa (SR -55)
City Council
41 –
19 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
Freeway. In addition, the project site is located within an area that is not near sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks. Moreover, access to the SR-55 Freeway is provided at the Dyer Road interchange, by way of Garry Avenue and Pullman Street, a drivin g distance of less than 0.50 miles. Moreover, the loading docks have been positioned at the south of the building in order to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto surrounding
properties. Following public comments provided during the August 22, 2022 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant modified the site plan to include height -restriction bars that will prohibit truck traffic on the eastern portion of the site, thereby minimizing impacts to the adjacent properties.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area.
The proposed facility would be compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area. The proposed use would redevelop a site containing aging office buildings with a modern warehousing and
distribution facility that has been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding land uses and to conform to all applicable development standards of the M1 zoning district. The project site is in an area identified by the General Plan for industrial uses, pursuant to the Industrial/FLEX land use designation.
Vehicles and trucks entering and departing from the project site will not travel through any neighborhoods containing sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, or parks.
The new General Plan also designates surrounding properties Industrial/FLEX, and Garry Avenue and Pullman Street
provide direct access to the SR -55 Freeway by way of the Dyer Road interchange, a driving distance of half a mile (0.50 miles).
4. That the proposed use shall comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use.
The use will comply with all regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. In addition to conforming to the development standards of the proposed M1 zoning district designation, the project and site plan have been designed to minimize impacts onto surrounding properties. P rimarily, the building’s loading docks have been placed facing south toward the vacant Alton
City Council
41 –
20 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
Avenue right-of-way, to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts onto adjacent, developed properties. The site plan has been designed such that should the Alton Avenue bridge over the SR-55 Freeway be constructed, the project would continue to satisfy all applicable landscape and solid screen wall
requirements. As the SR -55 Freeway widening project
commences in earnest in late 2022, the project will continue to be able to provide a 10- foot wide landscape buffer along the freeway, which will allow for mature trees, shrubs, and groundcover to be maintained long -term along the project site’s western (freeway-adjacent) landscape strip.
5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City.
The CUP would not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City. The CUP is consistent with various goals and policies of the General Plan. These include: Goal LU-1 (Growin g responsibly), Policy LU -1.9 (Public facilities and infrastructure); Goal LU-2 (Land Use Needs), Policies LU-
2.1 (Employment opportunities), LU -2.6 (Encourage
investment), LU -2.7 (Business incubator), and LU -2.8 (City image); Goal LU -3 (Compatibility of u ses), Policies LU -3.4 (Compatible development), LU -3.7 (Attractive environment), and LU-3.8 (Sensitive receptors); and Goal LU -4 (Complete communities), Policies LU- 4.2 (Public realm) and LU -4.3 (Sustainable land use strategies). These goals and policies encourage developments that are compatible with
surrounding properties, contribute to the overall development of the community, provide employment opportunities, and provide responsible developments that enhance the
community. As analyzed in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports prepared for the project, the proposed warehousing and distribution facility has been designed to satisfy all applicable General Plan goals and policies.
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the analysis performed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Environmental Review No. 2021- 54). Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is exempt from further review. This type of exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 105,558 square feet, and construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants , are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR). A rezoning that is consistent with an adopted general plan falls within this exemption.
City Council
41 –
21 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
A. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards . . . then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c).
B. The GPU was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU.
The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if its development density is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan for which an EIR has been c ertified, and the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan. CEQA Guidelines s ection 15183(i)(2). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.
C. The GPU identifies that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX -3 area is M1. The M1 zone provides for a variety of light indust rial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, and wholesale businesses. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. The GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project and identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures.
D. Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made:
1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of
3.0 allowable in the FLEX -3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Standard of M-1 (light Industrial zone). The M -1 zone does not have density requirements.
2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects . The subject
City Council
41 –
22 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects. In addition, as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, Project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
3. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build-out of the GPU. The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained further in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated.
4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR.
5. As explained in the prepared Exemption Checklist, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project’s conditions of approval.
E. The Project therefore qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The full exemption analysis is provided as Exhibit 10 of the staff report accompanying this Resolution. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-54 will be filed for this project.
Section 3. The City Council hereby upholds the determination of the Planning Commission and approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14 and denies Appeal Application Nos. 2022 -01 and 2022- 02. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 14 shall not become effective until the City Council adopts an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022-01, and said Amendment Application is in full force and effect.
Section 4. C
onditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 shall not become effective until the City Council adopts an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2022- 01, changing the subject property’s zoning designation from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M1), and said Amendment Application is in full force and effect.
City Council
41 –
23 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
Section 5. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs o f mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 6. The
City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to the Request for City Council Action dated December 20, 2022, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this ____ day of ________, 2022.
_______________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
City Council
41 –
24 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
AYES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ___________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ___________________________________
City Council
41 –
25 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS - _____________to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on __________________, 2022 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date: ____________ ____________________________ Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council
41 –
26 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations.
The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this 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 the conditional use permit.
1. The Applicant must comply with all conditions and requirements of the Development Review Committee for the Development Project (DP No. 2021-18).
2. The proposed facility shall be maintained as per approved plans and any existing landscaping shall be enhanced and well maintained. Any damage to existing structures, walls, parking areas, or landscaping must be repaired.
3. All activities shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the building. Outdoor activities shall be prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the City of Santa Ana or per Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-195.5.
4. Outdoor storage must be screened by solid walls, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-473.
5. The idling of trucks and passenger vehicles on and in the vicinity of the property, including on adjacent streets, is prohibited.
6. Contact information for an onsite manager or other individual responsible for the daily operations of the facility shall be posted in a prominent location at the front entry in the event that noise, traffic, and/or parking complaints need reporting.
7. Administrative offices shall not be subleased for uses not related to the warehousing and distribution facility.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for above-ground construction, the applicant shall record a parking and access easement allowing use of the eight (8) proposed parking spaces at the southeast portion of the project site by the adjacent property at 1800 East Garry Avenue (APN: 430-171-09).
City Council
41 –
27 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for above-ground construction, the applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property owner(s) at 1800 and 1820 East Garry Avenue to modify or remove any easements as necessary to facilitate construction of the proposed development. Proof of modification or removal of required easements shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permit for above-ground construction.
10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install two height- restriction bars at the eastern driveway and at the southeast portion of the onsite parking lot to restrict truck traffic from the eastern portion of the site. The height - restriction bars shall be designed to allow passage of passenger vehicles but to prohibit large truck traffic from circulating on the eastern portion of the project site, as per Exhibit 5 of the October 10, 2022 Planning Commission and City Council staff reports.
11. The applicant and any subsequent association or management is responsible for installing and routinely maintaining high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 13 or better as indicated by the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2, in the intake of ventilation systems. Verification of installation shall be provided prior to project occupancy.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Property Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a mainte nance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.);
b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses);
City Council
41 –
28 12/20/2022
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable;
d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessibl e bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable);
e) If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof ), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liabl e for compliance with its terms;
f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement;
g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance ag reement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/ or expense incurred by the City; and
h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement.
City Council
41 –
29 12/20/2022
7/22/22, 3:12 PM .
https://apps.spatialstream.com/landvision/production/CurrentBuild/Html/printpreview.html 1/1 AA No. 2022-01 & CUP No. 2022-14, "Garry Avenue Business Park"1700, 1720, and 1740 East Garry Avenue Exhibit 3 - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View
©2022DigitalMapProducts.Allrightsreserved.
Santa Ana Boundary
Zoning
750 feet
City Council
41 –
30 12/20/2022
Exhibit 4 – Site Photo
City Council
41 –
31 12/20/2022
WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer
3 GARRY AVENUE
NEWPORT FREEWAY (55)
ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE)Existing Sign to RemainN48°41'50"W 270.02'N44°38'47"W 209.37' N40°37'23"E 177.88'
N40°39'55"E 170.34'
N45°23'25"E 376.66'
N49°22'37"W 329.59'
N48°41'50"W 80.00'
10'-0"
30'-0"
(9' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE)
EXISTING FENCE AND SHRUBS
85'-0"
99'-0" 16'-0"
3 3
& MEZZ.OFFICE & MEZZ.OFFICE
510'-0"
16'-0"8'-6"
16'-0"8'-6"25'
16'16'-0"
16'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6"
8 3
T 5
3 3
3 3
9 9
10 9
2 686
18'-0"
10 44,300SF + 2,500SF=46,800SFAUSER:42,200SF + 2,500SF=44,700SFPROPOSED91,500SF CANOPY
28'-0"
30'-0"
3 1212
11 12'-0"18'-0"5'-0"17'-0" 60'-0"1313
BUSER:
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
AREA TO BETAKEN BY OCTA &CALTRANS FORTHE COSTA MESASR44 FREEWAYWIDENINGPROJECT 10' LANDSCAPEBUFFER
MONUMENTSIGNAGE ANDFREE STANDINGSIGN UNDERSEPARATEPERMIT ANDSHALL CONFORMWITH SAMC 41-862
HATCHED AREA REPRESENTSACCESS & PARKINGEASEMENT (SEE CIVIL) (E) PROPERTY LINE
(SEE CIVIL) FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION
EXISTING N40°37'23"E 246.00'
10'-0"
NEW CURB @PROPERTY LINE
5'-0"
(9' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE)
NEW 9' HT.TUBE STEELFENCENEW CURB @PROPERTY LINE10'-0" NEW 9' HT.TUBE STEELFENCEMOVE 24"FROM CURBEXISTING CURB @PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CURB @DRIVE WAYNEW CURB &PARKING
EXISTINGPARKING
(11- NEW 8.5' X 18' PARKING SPACES)
710710
NEW 9' HT.TUBE STEELFENCE
EXISTINGCURB &TREES
EXISTINGCURB &TREESEXISTINGCURB WORK
125'-038"
8'-0"102'-0"
9'-0"68'-0"9'-0"
18'-0"18'-0"
18'-0"18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"
9'-0"18'-0"
9'-0"18'-0"
102'-0"
93'-6"
8'-6"8'-6" 94'-6"18'-0"
18'-0"
3 1A2.214
2A2.215
aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 20'-0"Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CACONCEPTUAL ENLARGED SITE PLANA2 ©2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO
These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO.sheet plotted:drawing file name:Sep/26/2022 @ 5:10 PMp:\2021-124 greenlaw - garry ave\design\entitlement\2021-124-00 garry ave entitlement.dwgDISCLAIMER:ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
TRUENORTHPLANNORTH
02'10'20'30'5' 40'20'
1KEY NOTES:PEDESTRIAN PAVING (SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE)2CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVING (SEE CIVIL)3LANDSCAPE AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE)ACCESS DOOR OR EMERGENCY ACCESS DOOR4AUTOMATIC ROLLING GATE (10'-HEIGHT)5TRASH ENCLOSURE (ADA COMPLIANT)67STEEL TUBULAR FENCE (9' HEIGHT) #
PROVIDE KNOX BOX (LOCATION PER FIRE DEPT.)8ADA RAMP (AS REQUIRED)9ADA PATH OF TRAVEL10TRELLISED LUNCH AREA11BIKE RACK12ENRICHED CONCRETE PAVING (SEE LANDSCAPE)13 Date: 09-26-2022
BARRIER GATE 1 (NO TRUCKS ALLOWED)14BARRIER GATE 2 (NO TRUCKS ALLOWED)15
City Council
41 –
32 12/20/2022
16'-0" 16'-0"
30'-0" DRIVEWAY
NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE
7'-4""KNOX BOX
NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE
N49°22'37"W 329.59'
& MEZZ.OFFICE
5 310
9 18'-0"1212'-0"18'-0"5'-0" 60'-0"13
USER:
(SEE CIVIL) FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION5'-0"
EXISTINGCURB &TREES
1A2.214
aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 20-0"Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CACONCEPTUAL ENLARGED SITE PLANA2.1Date: 09-21-2022 1A2.2BARRIER GATE ELEVATION
City Council
41 –
33 12/20/2022
16'-0" 16'-0"
30'-0" DRIVEWAY
NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE
7'-4""KNOX BOX
NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE
21'-0" 21'-0"
40'-0" DRIVEWAY
7'-4""KNOX BOX
NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE NO TRUCKS ALLOWED. 88" MAX. CLEARANCE aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Job No. 2021-124Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0"Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CACONCEPTUAL ENLARGED GATE ELEVATIONA2.2Date: 09-26-2022 1A2.2BARRIER GATE 1 ELEVATION
2A2.2BARRIER GATE 2 ELEVATION
City Council
41 –
34 12/20/2022
& MEZZ.OFFICE & MEZZ.OFFICE
44,700SF191,500SFBUSER:44,300SF + 2,500SF=46,800SFAUSER:42,200SF + 2,500SF= 2,500 SF2,500 SF
aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Date: 09-08-2021Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 20'-0"Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CA ©2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO
These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO.sheet plotted:drawing file name:Sep/08/2021 @ 9:31 AMp:\2021-124 greenlaw - garry ave\design\site design\greenlaw sa revised.dwgDISCLAIMER:ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY 02'10'20'30'5' 40'20' TRUENORTHPLANNORTHCONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANCONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANA3
City Council
41 –
35 12/20/2022
GARRY AVENUE
NEWPORT FREEWAY (55)
ALTON PARKWAY (FUTURE)
Existing Sign to Remain
PROPOSEDBUILDING
T
PROPOSED PLANT PALETTETREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE /FORMHT. X SPRD.X CAL. (MIN.)WATERUSEDESCRIPTIONLOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUSBRISBANE BOX24" BOXSTD.8'H X 4'WMVERTICAL TREE OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN HILL'SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE36" BOXMULTI8'H X 5'WX 4"CMACCENT TREE PLATANUS ACERFOLIA'YARWOOD'LONDON PLANE24" BOX8'H X 5'WLDECIDUOSCANOPY RHUS LANCEAAFRICAN SUMAC24" BOXSTD.8' H X 5'WLBROADEVERGREENSHADE CANOPYBACKGROUND SHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWATERUSEDESCRIPTIONDASYLIRION WHEELERIDESERT SPOON5 GAL.48" O.C.LACCENT OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVE5 GAL.36" O.C.LBACKGROUNDSHRUB RHAMNUS C. 'MOUND SANBRUNO'COFFEEBERRY5 GAL.60" O.C.LLARGE SHRUB MIDGROUND SHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWATERUSEDESCRIPTIONDIANELLA TASMANICA'VARIEGATA'VARIEGATED FLAX LILY5 GAL.36" O.C.MSTRAPPY ACCENTHESPERALOE PARVIFLORARED YUCCA5 GAL.36" O.C.LFLOWERINGACCENT RHAPHIOLEPIS I. 'CLARA'WHITE INDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL.36" O.C.LFLOWERINGSHRUB MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS'REGAL MIST'PINK MUHLY5 GAL.36" O.C.MORNAMENTALGRASS ACACIA COGNATA 'COUSIN ITT'COUSIN ITT ACACIA5 GAL30" O.C.LFEATHERY MIDGROUND FOREGROUND SHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWATERUSEDESCRIPTIONAGAVE 'BLUE GLOW'BLUE GLOW AGAVE1 GAL.30" O.C.LSUCCULENTACCENT ALOE STRIATACORAL ALOE1 GAL.24" O.C.LSUCCULENTACCENT CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN'DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH5 GAL.30" O.C.LFLOWERINGSHRUB DIANELLA 'CASSA BLUE'CASSA BLUE FLAX LILY1 GAL.24" O.C.LSTRAPPY ACCENTSESLERIA 'GREENLEE'GREENLEE MOOR GRASS1 GAL.30" O.C.MORNAMENTALGRASS LOMONDRA LONGIFOLIA'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSH1 GAL30" O.C.LORNAMENTALGRASS GROUNDCOVERSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWATERUSEDESCRIPTIONALOE 'BLUE ELF'BLUE ELF ALOE1 GAL.24" O.C.LSUCCULENTGROUNDCOVERLANTANA 'NEW GOLD'NEW GOLD LANTANA1 GAL.36" O.C.LFLOWERINGGROUNDCOVERMYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 'PINK'PROSTRATE MYOPORUM1 GAL.36" O.C.LEVERGREENGROUNDCOVERVINESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWATERUSEDESCRIPTIONCALLIANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALAPINK POWDER PUFF5 GAL./ESPALIER15' O.C.MFLOWERING VINEDISTICTUS BUCCINATORIABLOOD-RED TRUMPET VINE1 GAL./STAKED--MFLOWERING VINEWATER USE KEY:VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER USE STATED IS PER 'WATER USECLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS IV) FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Date: 04-09-2021Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CA ©2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO.sheet plotted:drawing file name:Aug/30/2021 @ 2:30 PMj:\dwgs\ao\greenlaw garry\1-sd\gar-plp.dwgDISCLAIMER:ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN08-26-2021L1.1
LEGENDSIDEWALKACCESSIBLE RAMPMODULAR WETLANDPARKING TREESPECIMEN TREE AT SITE ENTRYDROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGTRASH ENCLOSURETRANSFORMER6' HT METAL FENCE & GATEDECORATIVE SCREEN WALLELECTRIC EASEMENTNEW PROPERTY LINEEXISTING MONUMENT SIGNVINE PLANTINGSTREET TREEBUILDING ENTRYCALTRANS EASEMENT10' LANDSCAPE BUFFERSCREEN TREEBIKE PARKING FORENLARGEMENT 'A'SEE SHEET L2.1
123456789101112
1215 15
8 17
11 4
1 2
7 6
13 13 12199 19
96 4
4 12
9 9
14 14
20 14
4 FORENLARGEMENT 'C'SEE SHEET L2.1
1516
914
1 4
10 1
1 19165
15 CITY OF SANTA ANA NOTES:·INSTALL 24" BOX STREET TREE AT 35' ON CENTER ON GARRY AVENUE, INCLUDING DEEP ROOT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PER CITY STANDARDS AND APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED.CONTACT THE TREE SECTION SUPERVISOR AT (714) 647-3337 FOR TREE SPECIES AND FOR NUMBER AND SIZE OF REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENTS.·THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW LANDSCAPING DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE PER THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKWAY GUIDELINE FORDROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS IN THE EXISTING PARKWAY.·ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRE A SEPERATE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER METER & SERVICE OF PROPER SIZE TO SUPPLYTHE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.·THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REQUIRES THAT WATER CONSERVATION IRRIGATION SYSTEMS BE INSTALLED FOR ALL LANDSCAPING WHERE WATER IS REQUIRED. ALL SYSTEMSSHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE WATER RESOURCES MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE FOR APPROVED CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. 1718
18 19
FORENLARGEMENT 'B'SEE SHEET L2.1
20 3
City Council
41 – 36
12/20/2022
aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Date: 04-09-2021Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CA ©2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO.sheet plotted:drawing file name:Aug/26/2021 @ 4:56 PMj:\dwgs\ao\greenlaw garry\1-sd\gar-plp.dwgDISCLAIMER:ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS08-26-2021L2.1
SCALE:AENLARGEMENT A1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:BENLARGEMENT B1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE FURNISHINGS
BIKE RACKMODEL: EMERSON BIKE RACKMFG: LANDSCAPE FORMSCOLOR / FINISH: STEEL/POWDER COAT CONCRETE PAVING TYPE 2COLOR: DARK GRAY - DAVIS COLORSFINISH: TOP CAST 05JOINTS: SAWCUTP2PRE-CAST DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERSCOLOR: CHARCOALFINISH: STANDARD FINISHP3
GARRY AVENUE
PROPOSEDBUILDING
PROPOSEDBUILDING
LEGENDSIDEWALK - P1BUILDING ENTRY - P2DETECTABLE WARNING PAVER - P3ACCESSIBLE RAMPMODULAR WETLANDPARKING TREESPECIMEN TREE AT SITE ENTRYDROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGELECTRIC EASEMENTNEW PROPERTY LINEENHANCED DRIVEWAY ENTRANCETRASH ENCLOSURE 12345678910 1
1 1
1 2
3 1017
4 6
6 5
6 8
8 8
9 9
SCALE:CENLARGEMENT C1/8" = 1'-0"
HARDSCAPE
P1CONCRETE PAVING TYPE 1COLOR: NATURAL GRAYFINISH: MEDIUM BROOMJOINTS: TOOLED EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA WITH TABLES ANDSEATING, WASTE RECEPTACLES AND SHADESTRUCTURE (S2,S3)STREET TREEPARKWAY - DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGBIKE RACK - S1SCREEN TREE 13 S1S2S3 PICNIC TABLE & SEATSMODEL: CAROUSEL DINING BACKED (4 SEATS & 3 SEATS)MFG: LANDSCAPE FORMSCOLOR / FINISH: STEEL / POWDER COATTRASH RECEPTACLEMODEL: CHASE PARKMFG: LANDSCAPE FORMSCOLOR / FINISH: CAST ALUMINUM
GARRY AVENUE
PROPOSEDBUILDING
STAMPED CONCRETECOLOR: CHARCOALFINISH: STANDARD FINISHP4 2 13
8 811 11
8 68
8 12
1211
14 14
7 8 8
15 15
1516
16 15
17 17
City Council
41 – 37
12/20/2022
aoarchitects.com714 / 639-9860144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866Date: 04-09-2021Job No. 2021-124Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Greenlaw | PartnersGARRY AVE. BUSINESS PARK SANTA ANA, CA ©2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO.sheet plotted:drawing file name:Aug/26/2021 @ 4:56 PMj:\dwgs\ao\greenlaw garry\1-sd\gar-images.dwgDISCLAIMER:ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS /BRISBANE BOX
ACACIA COGNATA 'COUSIN ITT' /COUSIN ITT ACACIA
TREES
SHRUBS, SUCCULENTS, GRASSES & GROUND COVERS
DIANELLA T. 'VARIEGATA' /VARIEGATED FLAX LILY
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 'PINK' /PINK MYOPORUM
OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' /SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'YARWOOD' /LONDON PLANE TREE
RHUS LANCEA /AFRICAN SUMAC
AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' /BLUE GLOW AGAVEALOE 'BLUE ELF' /BLUE ELF ALOEALOE STRIATA /CORAL ALOECALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' /DWARF BOTTLEBRUSHDASYLIRION WHEELERI /DESERT SPOON DIANELLA C. 'CASSA BLUE' /CASSA BLUE FLAX LILYHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA /RED YUCCALANTANA 'NEW GOLD' /NEW GOLD LANTANALOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' /DWARF MAT RUSHMUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'REGAL MIST' /PINK MUHLY OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' /LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVERHAMNUS C. 'MOUND SAN BRUNO' /COFFEEBERRYRHAPHIOLEPIS I. 'CLARA' /WHITE INDIAN HAWTHORNSESLERIA 'GREENLEE' /GREENLEE MOOR GRASS PRELIMINARY PLANT IMAGERY08-26-2021L3.1
DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIA / BLOOD-RED TRUMPET VINE
VINE
CALLIANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALA /PINK POWDER PUFF
CALLIANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALA / PINK POWDER PUFF
City Council
41 – 38
12/20/2022
City Council
41 – 39
12/20/2022
City Council
41 – 40
12/20/2022
City Council
41 – 41
12/20/2022
1700 E Garry Avenue Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
Lead Agency:
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Project Applicant:
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
CEQA Consultant:
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
July 2022
City Council
41 –
42 12/20/2022
This page left intentionally blank.
City Council
41 –
43 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
i
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ............................................................ 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE ....................................... 4
2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................... 4 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ....... 15
3.6 LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS .......... 15
3.7 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ........................................................................................................................... 15 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................... 25
4.1 CHECKLIST FORM ........................................................................................................................................ 25
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 26
4.3 DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) .................................................................... 26 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 28
5.1 AESTHETICS. .................................................................................................................................................. 28
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. ......................................................................................... 32
5.3 AIR QUALITY. ................................................................................................................................................ 35
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ........................................................................................................................ 43
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................................................................. 46
5.6 ENERGY. ........................................................................................................................................................ 52
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................... 54
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. .............................................................................................................. 59
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ............................................................................................. 62
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................... 67
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 72
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. ................................................................................................................................ 74
5.13 NOISE. ............................................................................................................................................................ 76
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING. ................................................................................................................. 83
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. ........................................................................................................................................ 85
5.16 RECREATION. ................................................................................................................................................ 88
5.17 TRANSPORTATION. ..................................................................................................................................... 90
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................................................................ 94
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................................................................ 97
5.20 WILDFIRES. .................................................................................................................................................. 101 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS......................................................................... 103 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 104
City Council
41 –
44 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
ii
Tables
TABLE 1: SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARD .............................................................................. 4 TABLE AES-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCT WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 29 TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ...................................................................................................... 37 TABLE AQ-2: MAXIMUM PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS................................................................................................................ 3737 TABLE AQ-3: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 38 TABLE AQ-4: PROJECT LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 39 TABLE AQ-5: PROJECT LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 3939 TABLE GHG-1: CONSTRUCTION RELATED GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................... 60 TABLE GHG-2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 60 TABLE N-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN UPDAT CITY OF SANTA ANA NOISE ELEMENT STANDARDS........................... 77 TABLE N-2: CITY OF SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS ............................................................................. 77 TABLE N-3: NOISE MEASUREMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 78 TABLE N-4: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................................................... 78 TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION ............................................................................................................................... 80 TABLE T-1. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................................................................................... 91
Figures
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 2: LOCAL VICINITY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: AERIAL VIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 4: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ................................................................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 5: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 6: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS............................................................................................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 7: CONCEPTUAL RENDERING ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 8: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix
Appendix A Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B Biological Assessment
Appendix C Historical Resource Assessment
Appendix D Archaeological Resources Assessment
Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix G Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study
Appendix J Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix K Acoustical Assessment
Appendix L Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum
City Council
41 –
45 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
1 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183
This exemption analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of three office buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and construction of a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants ( proposed Project) are addressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15183 (Exemption Checklist).
As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and PRC Section 21083.3(b)). The State CEQA Guidelines further state that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards […] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c)).”
1.2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The City of Santa Ana (City) General Plan Update (GPU) was adopted, and the GPU EIR certified, in April 2022 (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087); the GPU went into effect on May 26, 2022 . The GPU provides long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045 , and provides a comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation and public safety policies for the entire City. The updated General Plan Land Use Element guides growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, use and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses.
Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the GPU. Any action, program, or project is considered consistent with the GPU if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the GPU or not obstruct their attainment. The GPU EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the GPU and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate these impacts.
A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the certified GPU EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.
1.3 APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d), the exemption applies to projects which meet the following conditions:
City Council
41 –
46 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
2 1. The project is consistent with:
a. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan,
b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or
c. A general plan of a local agency, and
2. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
Furthermore, the exemption applies when all feasible mitigation measures identified in the applicable general plan are implemented by the public agency with jurisdiction to require such mitigation measures (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e)).
The GPU EIR was certified in 20 22, which analyzed the impacts of the City’s GPU, which was adopted. As discussed in this exemption checklist, the Project is consistent with the development standards analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site is located within the GPU 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area. The General Plan (Land Use Element Page 54) describes that this focus area will transition from a portion of the city that is almost exclusively focused on professional office jobs to one that supports a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed-use development.
The Project site has a GPU designation of FLEX-3 that allows a FAR of 3.0 and building heights up to 10 - stories. The FLEX-3 designation allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office-industrial flex spaces, small- scale clean manufacturing, research, and development.
The GPU identifies (on Table LU -A-1) that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX -3 area is M 1 (Light Industrial). The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses , including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The M1 zone provides requirements for minimum lot sizes or 12,000 square feet with 100 feet of street frontage, building height (a maximum of 35 feet), setback requirements from public streets, landscaping requirements. The M-1 zone does not have density requirements. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is within the projections of the GPU EIR, which evaluated a density of 3.0 FAR on the site. As such, the GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project , and the Project implements the applicable mitigation measures. The Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in S tate CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made:
1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX -3 designated area, which is the development density established by the GPU and analyzed in the GPU EIR. The Project site has an Interim Development Standard of M-1 (light Industrial zone). The M-1 zone does not have density requirements.
2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the P roject or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The subject property is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects.
City Council
41 –
47 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
3 In addition, as explained further in the Exemption Checklist below, Project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR ; and as detailed in the GPU EIR, development projects pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources , noise, and tribal cultural resources. However , applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build-out of the GPU . The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project , and as explained further in the Exemption Checklist below, no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated.
4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As explained in the E xemption Checklist below, no new information has be en identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU EIR.
5. The Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, the Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, and through the Project’s conditions of approval. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project is located at 1700 - 1740 East Garry Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 430-171- 07), within the southeastern portion of the City of Santa Ana . The City of Irvine boundaries are located to the south of the site, across the right-of-way for Alton Avenue. The site is located within the Tustin USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle map. The location of the Project site is shown on Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Local Vicinity.
Regional access to the Project site is provided State Route 55 (SR-55) and the Dyer Road interchange. Local access is provided by Dyer Road to Pullman Street, which turns into Garry Avenue. Alternatively, local access to the site is provided by Red Hill Av enue to Alton Parkway and Daimler Street to Garry Avenue; or Red Hill Avenue to Deere Avenue to either Daimler or Pullman Streets to Garry Avenue.
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The Project site consists of one 5.2-gross-acre parcel (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The Project site is currently developed with three office buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and were constructed between 1972 and 1974. The existing office structures are one-story cement and stucco buildings with windows that are surrounded by parking. The buildings currently accommodate multiple tenants each. Vehicular access to the Project site is provided from a driveway at Garry Avenue. See Figure 3, Aerial View.
The Project site has an elevation of approximately 47 feet above mean sea level with a decreasing topographic gradient to the east-northeast.
City Council
41 –
48 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
4 2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE
The City’s GPU designates the land use of the Project site as FLEX-3 that allows a FAR of 3.0 and building heights up to 10 -stories. The FLEX -3 designation allows for clean industrial uses that do not produce significant air pollutants, noise, or other nuisances typically associated with industrial uses, including office - industrial flex spaces, small-scale clean manufacturing, research, and development.
The GPU identifies (on Table LU -A-1) that the Interim Development Standard for the FLEX -3 area i s M1 (Light Industrial). The M1 zone provides for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacture, assembly, machine shops, wholesale businesses. The M1 zone provides requirements for minimum lot sizes or 12,000 square feet with 100 feet of street frontage, building height (a maximum of 35 feet), setback requirements from public streets, landscaping requirements. The M -1 zone does not have density requirements.
2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is located within a developed area. The surrounding land uses, and their respective designations and zoning or interim development standard (until the zoning is updated to be consistent with the recently adopted General Plan land uses) are listed on Table 1.
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning / Interim Development Standard Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning / Interim Development Standard North SR-55 and Commercial Offices FLEX-3 M-1 – Light Industrial West SR-55 followed by Commercial
and Industrial uses FLEX-3 M-1 – Light Industrial
South Vacant Parcel and
Commercial/Industrial
FLEX-3 – Industrial/Flex &
Urban and Industrial
(City of Irvine)
M-1 – Light Industrial & 5.1 – Irvine Business
Complex (IBC) Multi-Use
(City of Irvine)
East Commercial, Industrial, and
Offices
FLEX-3 – Industrial/Flex M-1 – Light Industrial
City Council
41 –
49 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
5 Figure 1: Regional Location
City Council
41 –
50 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
6 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
51 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
7 Figure 2: Local Vicinity
City Council
41 –
52 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
8 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
53 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
9 Figure 3: Aerial View
City Council
41 –
54 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
10 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
55 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
11 Figure 4: General Plan Designation
City Council
41 –
56 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
12 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
57 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
13 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Overview
The Project includes demolition of the three existing office buildings, which are located at 1700 East Garry Avenue, 1720 East Garry Avenue , and 1740 East Garry Avenue , totaling 103,031 square feet an d construction of a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants. One side of the building would have 42,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors. The site plan is illustrated on Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan.
Architectural Design
The building incorporates a modern warehouse architectural design. The building exterior would be constructed with tilt-up concrete wall panels consisting of a primarily off-white color palette, with accented wall panels of light and dark grays and green. The building would be approximately 43 feet 6 inches tall with varying roof lines to break up the perception of massing. Windows would be fitted with tinted light blue glass. Building entrances would include metal canopies on the exterior of the building. The elevations and conceptual rendering of the building are illustrated on Figure 7, Proposed Elevations, and Figure 8, Conceptual Rendering.
Landscaping and Fencing
Landscaping is proposed along the entire site perimeter, adjacent to the proposed building, and throughout the parking areas. Along the Garry Avenue frontage, layered landscaping consisting of 24 and 36-inch box street trees, shrubs and assorted ground cover is proposed. The landscaping palate includes assorted drought tolerant ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover ranging from moderate to low water needs. Tree species include London Plane Tree, Swan Hill Fruitless Olive , Brisbane Box, and African Sumac and would be consistent with the Municipal Code 33 -185, Street Tree Species to Be Planted, requirements. The landscape plan is illustrated on Figure 9, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
A 10-foot-high decorative screen wall is proposed along the southwest property line. A 9 -foot-high tube steel screen fence is propos ed along the southeast property line, and a 10-foot-high landscape buffer is proposed along the northwest property line adjacent to the SR-55.
Lighting
The Project would include new exterior lighting for security, to accent the landscaping, and to light signage, walkways, and parking areas that would be consistent with Municipal Code Section s 41-611.1 and 41 - 1304. Light pole fixtures are proposed in parking areas and wall-mounted light fixtures are proposed on the exterior of the building , and landscape accent lighting is proposed at the Project driveways . The new lighting would be focused on the site, shielded away from offsite areas.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from two driveways from Garry Avenue near the northeast and southwest boundaries of the Project site. Onsite circulation includes a 30-foot-wide half-loop drive aisle that goes around the building , connecting to both proposed driveways. This drive aisle would provide vehicular access to the parking areas and loading docks in the rear of the building and would serve as the onsite fire lane where parking would be prohibited. Access to the loading dock area would be restricted via swinging tube steel gates.
A sidewalk would be installed along the Garry Avenue site frontage and a ccessible pedestrian paths of travel to the two building entrances from the sidewalk would be provided near the proposed driveways.
City Council
41 –
58 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
14 Parking and Loading Docks
Truck loading docks would be located along the south side of the building. The building would include 10 loading dock doors, five loading docks for each tenant . The Project would also 139 standard car parking stalls with 4 accessible, and 2 van accessible spaces that would be located on the northwest and southeast sides of the proposed building . Stalls near the two building entrances would be reserved for clean air vehicles and electrical vehicles in conformance with requirements set forth in CALGreen Building Code Section
5.106.5.
Infrastructure Connections
Water and Sewer. The Project would install new water and sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8- inch water main and 9-inch sewer main in Garry Avenue. In addition, an 8-inch fire water line is proposed underneath the entire length of the onsite drive aisle that would connect the existing 8 -inch water main in Garry Avenue.
Drainage. The Project would install a new onsite drainage system that would connect to the existing 18-inch drain in Daimler Street. The onsite drainage would convey runoff to biofiltration basin s that would treat flows prior to discharge.
Off-Site Improvements
The Project would remove the existing curb cut for the existing driveway and include two new curb cuts for the two proposed driveways within the Gary Avenue right-of-way. The Project also includes the installation of a new sidewalk along within the Gary Avenue right-of-way along the site frontage.
3.2 General Plan and Zoning
As discussed above, the GPU’s land use designation of the Project site is FLEX-3 with an Interim Development Standard of M-1. The existing land use designation and Interim Development Standard allow for office s, light industrial, and other warehouse uses such as manufacturing, distribution, and assembly . As is further analyzed in this Community Plan Exemption Checklist, the Project is consistent with the existing land use designation and Interim Development Standard , and no changes to these designations are required or proposed.
3.3 Operational Characteristics
For purposes of this evaluation, the proposed building is assumed to be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with exterior loading dock area and parking areas illuminated at night. The building is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the building, except for traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of trucks at designated dock doors.
3.4 Construction and Phasing
Construction activities include demolition and removal of the existing structures, landscaping, and pavement; site preparation; excavation and grading; b uilding construction; paving; and architectural coating. Over - excavation and re-compaction of the site soils would extend at least 7.5 and 3 feet below finished or existing grade (whichever is deeper) within building and pavement/flatwork areas, respectively.
Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 12 months, with the entire Project constructed in one phase. Project construction would occur within the hours allowed by the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits construction noise to between the hours of 7:00 A .M. and 8:00 P .M. Monday through Saturday.
Construction activities are prohibited at any time on Sunday or a fed eral holiday (City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 18-314(e).
City Council
41 –
59 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
15 3.5 Prior Environmental Document(s) for Analyzing State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
• City of Santa Ana GPU Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, certified April 19, 2022. State Clearinghouse Number 2020029087.
3.6 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
• City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701; and accessible online at the City’s website: https://www.santa -ana.org/general-plan- environmental-documents/
3.7 Discretionary Approvals
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the C ity is the designated Lead Agency for the Project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and Project approval.
Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed Project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are s tate agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed Project. There are no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies , or any other public agencies, whose approval is required for approving this Project.
The following discretionary actions are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the Project:
City of Santa Ana
• Amendment Application (zone change) to update the site’s zoning designation to change from Professional (P) to Light Industrial (M- 1) to be consistent with the FLEX -3 General Plan land use designation and the M-1 interim development standard for FLEX-3, and • Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to allow a freight, bus, and truck terminal for distribution activities, as defined by Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-60 and permitted by SAMC Section 41- 472.5(i).
City Council
41 –
60 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
16 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
61 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
17 Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan
City Council
41 –
62 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
18 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
63 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
19 Figure 6: Proposed Elevations
City Council
41 –
64 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
20 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
65 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
21 Figure 7: Conceptual Rendering
City Council
41 –
66 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
22 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
67 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
23 Figure 8: Conceptual Landscape Plan
City Council
41 –
68 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
24 This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
69 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
25 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1 CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Garry Avenue Business Park Project
Lead Agency Name and Address : City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Contact Person and Phone Number: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP. Principal Planner, 714-647-5882 Project Location: 1700 - 1740 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca 92705 (APN: 430-171-07) Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Greenlaw Management Inc., 18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612
General Plan Designation: FLEX-3
Zoning/ Interim Development Standard: Light Industrial (M-1) Project Description: Redevelopment of a 5.2-acre parcel currently developed with three commercial industrial buildings that total 103,031 square feet with a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants. One side would consist of a 42 ,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors. See Section 3, above, for additional details about the proposed Project.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is located within a developed area , including the SR-55 along the northwest side of the site, and commercial, light industrial, and office/business park uses, and roadways surrounding the other sides of the site.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Not Applicable.
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that inc ludes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historic al and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum, such as this Community Plan Exemption Checklist (State CEQA Guidelines Section15183). As such, AB 52 consultation is not required for this Project.
City Council
41 –
70 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
26 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest ry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.3 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project WOULD NOT result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required, and a Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed indicating that the project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
I find that the proposed Project would result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
___________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date
___________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name Title
City Council
41 –
71 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
27 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Community Plan Exemption Checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the Project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
• Items checked “Peculiar Impact that is not Substantially Mitigated” indicates that the Project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the project or the project site and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1)(f)) • Items checked “Impact not Analyzed as Significant Effect in GPU EIR” indicates that the project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR. Such a project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2),(c),(f)) • Items checked “Potentially Significant Offsite or Cumulative Impact Not Discussed in GPU EIR” indicates the project could result in a significant offsite or cumulative impact that was not discussed in the GPU EIR. Such an offsite or cumulative project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3),(c),(f))
• Items checked “Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information” indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that a p roject impact is more severe than discussed in the GPU EIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4),(c),(f)).
• Items checked “No New Impact” indicates that potential impacts from the p roject have been adequately analyzed in the GPU EIR.
A project does not qualify for a Community Plan Exemption if it is determined that it would result in one or more of the following: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the GPU EIR, 2) a significant impact was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR, 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GPU EIR, or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the GPU EIR was certified. However, if a project having any of the foregoing impacts can be substantially mitigated through the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. Uniformly applied development policies or standards that are applicable to the proposed project are included within this analysis.
A summary of the City’s analysis of each potential environmental effect is provided in the checklist below for each CEQA subject area.
City Council
41 –
72 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
28 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the GPU EIR, and then discuss whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, or if further analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the GPU EIR.
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
5.1 AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099 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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed aesthetics impacts on pages 5.1‐20 through 5.1‐32. The GPU EIR describes that buildout under the GPU would be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s existing skyline. However, the EIR determined that b uildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, includi ng rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic highways. The EIR also determined that the GPU would create new sources of light or glare, but adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes.
City Council
41 –
73 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
29 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New Impact.
The GPU EIR describes that the 55 Freeway/Dyer Street focus area (that the Project site is located in) is not along a scenic corridor, but it is located in close proximity to a major City entry. The GPU EIR describes that the FLEX land use designation in the area allows for an urban environment with a mix of uses instead of an area that is almost exclusively focused on professional office and industrial. The GPU EIR further identifies that the Scenic Corridors Element identifies selected views of the C ity from SR- 55 and that d evelopment consistent with the GPU, would enhance views of the City from SR- 55. As the proposed Project would redevelop that site with a new modern one -story building, consistent with the GPU land use designation, it would not result in an im pact related to a scenic vista. As detailed in Figure 5 , Conceptual Site Plan, the proposed building would be setback from the roadway; and therefore , would not encroach into existing views along the Garry Avenue or SR-55 roadway corridors. Thus, the Project would result in no new impact related to effects on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No New Impact. The California State Scenic Highway System Map shows that there are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The only officially designated scenic highway within Orange County is a portion of SR‐91 that is located between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit, which is not in the vicinity of the Project site. Likewise, there are no County ‐designated scenic highways that run through the City of Santa Ana. Further, the proposed Project site is flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of the Project. Therefore, no new impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.
c) In non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the projec t conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No New Impact. The Project is in an urbanized area. The Project proposes to demolish the existing three office buildings and to construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants. The proposed building would be developed in compliance with the FLEX-3 land use designation and M-1 (Light Industrial) Interim Development Standard as shown in Table AES-1 below.
Table AES-1: Project Consistency with GPU and Municipal Code Standards Development Feature Development Standard Project Consistency GPU Standards for FLEX-3
FAR 3.0 The Project would have a FAR of 0.43
Building Height Maximum of 10 stories The proposed building would be a maximum height of 43 feet 6 inches
which is less than the 10-story
maximum.
Municipal Code Standards for the M-1 Interim Development Standard Building Height May exceed the standard 35-foot
limit set forth in the M-1 zoning
The proposed buildings would be a
maximum height of 43 ft and 6 inches.
City Council
41 –
74 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
30 Development Feature Development Standard Project Consistency district as the project site is
located in a height-exempt area.
Lot Size Minimum of 12,000 SF The Project site is 5.2 acres Street Frontage Minimum of 100 ft
Landscaping A yard is required along any lot
line which abuts a public street
which in shall be of an area not
less than the length of such lot line
in feet multiplied by:
(i)
Twenty (20) feet, if the street is
designated in the general plan of
the city as an arterial street; or
(ii)
Ten (10) feet, if the street is not so
designated as an arterial street.
The yard required by paragraph
(a) shall include a strip
immediately adjacent to the street
and shall be of a width not less
than:
(i)
Ten (10) feet, if the street is
designated in the general plan of
the city as an arterial street; or
(ii)
Five (5) feet, if the street is not so
designated as an arterial street.
The Project would include a 26-foot
landscaped setback from Gary
Avenue.
Wall Height Walls and fences shall not exceed
10 ft in height and shall not
exceed 4 ft in height where the
wall or fence extends into the
required front yard or
landscaped area
A 10-foot-high decorative screen wall
is proposed along the southwest
property line. A 9-foot-high tube steel
screen fence is proposed along the
southeast property line, and a 10-
foot-high landscape buffer is
proposed along the northwest
property line adjacent to SR-55.
Visual character and quality of the proposed industrial building would be similar to the existing building, but with aesthetic improvements, such as new architectural treatments, new landscaping, lighting, etc.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with regulations governing scenic quality of the Project site. As described previously, the GPU EIR determined that development consistent with the GPU, would enhance views of the City from SR-55. As the proposed Project would redevelop that site that is adjacent to SR-55 with a new modern one-story building, consistent with the GPU land use designation, it would not result in an impact related to visual character or quality. Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning or other regulation governing scenic quality. Therefore, and no new impacts would occur.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. The Project site is located within a developed urban area, adjacent to highly used roadways. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site includes: vehicle lights from SR -55, streetlights along Garry Avenue, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, landscape
City Council
41 –
75 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
31 lighting, and lighting from building interiors that pass -through windows. The exterior lighting on the Project site includes exterior lighting throughout the parking areas and lighting at buildings entrances.
The proposed Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the building and parking areas. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a similar intensity development on the site than currently exists, which would contribute similar sources of light to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Also , all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41 -611.1 and Section 41-1304 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the Project area is within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations that would be verified by the City’s Planning and Building Agency during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Overall, no new lighting impacts would occur from the Project.
Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker, or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass . Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. T he proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and the proposed building would not be glass sided. Although the proposed building would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural treatments, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and no new impacts would occur.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of aesthetics, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impac t which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None are applicable to the Project.
City Council
41 –
76 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
32 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mappi
ng and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
City Council
41 –
77 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
33 e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed agriculture and forestry resource impacts on pages 8-1 and 8-2.
The GPU EIR determined that the City does not have any significant agricultural resources and has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Santa Ana does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zon ed Timberland Production. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts associated with conversion of farmland and forestry would not occur, and no mitigation measures related to agricultural, or forestry were required or identified.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No New Impact. The Project site is on Urban and Built-Up Land according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder Map. The Project site is surrounded by Urban and Built- Up Land. No farmland or other agricultural uses are located near the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to farmland or agriculture.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No New Impact. As identified above, the Project site does not include agricultural land. The Project site has a General Plan land use of FLEX-3 land use and an Interim Development Standard of M1 (Light Industrial).
Additionally, the Project site is not currently under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on conflicts with existing z oning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is cur rently developed and located within an urban and developed area. The Project site does not include forest land or timberland. The Project site is designated as FLEX-3 and has an Interim Development Standard of M1. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflicts with existing forest land or timberland zoning.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is currently developed and located with in an urban and developed area. The Project site does not include forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
City Council
41 –
78 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
34 No New Impact. As identified above, the Project site does not include agricultural land. The site is developed and is not used for agricultural purposes. The site is not designated or zoned for forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non -forest use.
Therefore, no impact s would occur, and the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conversion of agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of agricultural/forestry resources, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact whi ch is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
79 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
35 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.3 AIR QUALITY . Where available,
the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) 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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substa ntial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) affecting a substantial
number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed air quality impacts on pages 5. 2‐45 through 5.2‐72. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU is inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. The EIR included Mitigation Measure AQ-2; however, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that woul d be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. Therefore, the GPU determined that impacts related to the AQMP, and air quality emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
The GPU EIR also determined that construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD’S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to t he nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible. However, the EIR determined that construction time frames and equipment for site -specific development projects have a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction- related emissions. Thus, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
City Council
41 –
80 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
36 The GPU EIR also determined that because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project -related construction activities and large emitters of on -site operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by i ndividual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD’s Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The EIR describes that Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The GP EIR also describes that buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC). Mitigation Measure AQ -3 was included to ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project - level environmental review by the City of Santa Ana. The EIR describes that individual development projects would be required to meet the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -3, and TACs would be less than significant a project level but would result in a cumulative contribution to health risk that is significant and unavoida ble. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized, and facilities would comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). A project is considered consistent with the AQMP if it would not result in or cause California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations. In addition, the SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an incre ase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.
Furthermore, The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non -attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact c ould occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
The Project proposes to demolish the existing three buildings, which total 103,031 square feet and to construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot industrial building that would accommodate two tenants with 5 dock doors for each tenant . Of the 91,500 square feet, 81,500 square feet would be used for warehouse facility and 10,000 square feet would be used for office space.
The GPU and GPU EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed with the FLEX-3 designation that allows for clean industrial uses. The Project is consistent with the development assumptions for Project site in the GPU EIR, and the land use designations of the GPU are consistent with the 2016 AQMP. As detailed in Response b), the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed Project determined that construction and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD threshol ds, including the CAQQS and NAAQS . The proposed Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the current 2016 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflict with implementation of an air quality plan.
City Council
41 –
81 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
37 b) 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)?
No New Impact. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs./day)
Operations
(lbs./day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition of the existing structures and removal of the existing infrastructure and pavement, (2) site preparation, (3) grading, (4) bu ilding construction, (5) paving, and (6) architectural coating. The volume of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction Projects to com ply SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, covering all tr ucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rules 403 and 1113 were accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ-2, construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Further, the Project s contribution to cumulative levels of any criteria pollutant would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
Table AQ-2 Maximum Peak Construction Emissions
Construction Year
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Construction Year 1 3.96 40.82 24.00 0.07 20.91 11.53
Construction Year 2 45.41 17.55 19.85 0.04 2.05 1.11
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A)
City Council
41 –
82 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
38 Operation
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NO X, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, mobile source emissions, and on-site equipment emissions. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long -term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, ap plications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. Operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions from implementation of the Project.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEE Mod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long -term regional emissions of criteria pollutants, however, these emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table AQ-3: Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Summer Emissions
Area Source Emissions 2.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Emissions 0.52 6.65 6.34 0.04 2.80 0.81
Off-road Emissions 1.97 16.47 15.95 0.04 0.85 0.78
Total Emissions 4.61 23.22 22.39 0.08 3.65 1.59
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 55 150
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Emissions
Area Source Emissions 2.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Emissions 0.53 6.92 6.08 0.04 2.80 0.81
Off-road Emissions 1.97 16.47 15.95 0.04 0.85 0.78
Total Emissions 4.61 23.49 22.13 0.08 3.65 1.59
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 55 150
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact. The daily construction emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project are evaluated against SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. Receptor locations are off -site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from Project activities.
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre- existing respiratory or cardiovascular i llness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise.
Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as “sensitive
City Council
41 –
83 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
39 receptors”; they are also known to be locations where an individual can remain for 24 hou rs. The nearest residential receptor is located approximately 2,200 feet north of the Project site. In addition, it is noted that a dialysis center is 700 feet to the northeast.
Daily construction emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project are eva luated against SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables for LSTs that have been interpolated for a 2.5-acre site as the proposed construction would disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres per day during grading activities. The appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST analysis is Central Orange County (SRA 17).
Although the nearest residence is approximately 2,200 feet from the Project, the Air Quality Assessment provides a conservative analysis of potential LST impacts at the dialysis center, 700 feet (213 meters) from the site is provided to identify maximum potential impacts. As shown in Table AQ-4, emissions resulting from Project construction would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant.
Table AQ-4: Project Localized Significance Summary of Construction
Construction Activity
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Demolition (2021) 31.44 21.57 11.72 2.98
Site Preparation (2021) 40.50 21.15 20.91 11.53
Grading (2021) 24.74 15.86 7.89 4.32
Building Construction (2021) 17.43 16.58 0.96 0.90
Building Construction (2022) 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Paving (2022) 11.12 14.58 0.57 0.52
Architectural Coating (2022) 1.41 1.81 0.08 0.08
Maximum Daily Emissions 40.50 21.57 20.91 11.53
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 2.5 acres at
213 meters) 159 3,119 76 29
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A)
Table AQ-5 identifies the localized operational impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. As shown in Table AQ-5, emissions resulting from Project operations would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Table AQ-5: Project Localized Significance Summary of Operations
Activity
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site Emissions (Area, Energy, and Off-
road Equipment Sources)
16.57 16.05 0.85 0.78
SCAQMD Localized Significance
Threshold (5 acres at 213 meters)
204 4,248 23 8
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A)
City Council
41 –
84 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
40 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. The proposed Project does not include heavy industrial, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding, or other land uses that typically result in emissions associated with odor complaints, based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Project would provide for warehousing. Potential emissions that may lead to odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust. However, these emissions and any associated odors would be localized and temporary in nature and would not be sufficient to affect a substantial number of people or result in a nuisance as defined by SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed Project woul d not result in any substantial impacts related to odor.
The Project would result in no new impacts on other emissions affecting a substantial number of people.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of air quality, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) AQMD Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
AQMD Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
AQMD Rule 1113. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low -Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality imp acts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are
City Council
41 –
85 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
41 determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City.
Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such as:
o Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
• Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible.
A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD’s website.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Air Quality Assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix A.
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non -exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall r equire that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measur es to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures)
City Council
41 –
86 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
42 of the CALGreen Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star –certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Air Quality Assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix A.
AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because it would only generate 44 truck trips per day, as detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation.
City Council
41 –
87 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
43 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildli fe corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
City Council
41 –
88 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
44 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed biological resource impacts on pages 5.3‐17 through 5.3‐22. The GPU EIR describes that the parcels within the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road focus area, which includes the Project stie, have a land use designation of Professi onal and Administrative Office that would change to Industrial/Flex under the GPU. The vegetation community observed within these parcels is classified as “ruderal”, which is not native nor considered to be a sensitive vegetation community. Since the exist ing vegetation communities are not sensitive and non-native, the GPU EIR determined that no impact would occur.
The GPU EIR also determined that Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Addit ionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waterways. However, the GPU EIR includes mitigation that requires biological review of project sites that include vegetated land or streams. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP a s the City is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The EIR also describes that impacts from buildout of the GPU to nesting sites and migratory birds would be less than significance with compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. The Project site is fully developed with office buildings and associated uses. Additionally, the Project site is not identified within an area of special- status wildlife species. The Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that there are no native habitats on the Project site and no wetlands or waters of the U.S., RWQCB, or CDFW exist onsite. No special-status plant or wildlife species were identified and there is no potential for special -status species to occur onsite due to the lack of native habitat, lack of aquatic features, and the high level of development on-site and in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed with urban uses. The Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that there are no native habitats on the Project site and no riparian habitat exist onsite or in the surrounding area . Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts t o riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed and does not include wetland s.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts to wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed with three office buildings and the site is surrounded by urban development, including a freeway and commercial and light industrial development. The Project site does not contain established native resident or migratory wild life corridors and is not used as a native wildlife nursery site. The Project site includes ornamental trees that would be
City Council
41 –
89 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
45 removed as part of the Project. Tree removal and/or indirect impacts from construction activity during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory species covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. However, compliance with these existing regulations, as ensure through the City’s development permitting process, the Project would not result in new impacts on migratory fish or wildlife species.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
No New Impact. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 33, Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees, establishes regulations and standards related to public trees and street trees. The Project would install street trees along Garry Avenue that would be ensured to be incompliance with City regulations through the City’s development permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No New Impact. The Project site is outside of the Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) identified in the GPU EIR. There are no other Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on habitat conservation plans.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of biological resources, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
90 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
46 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed cultural resource impacts on pages 5.4‐26 through 5.4‐31.
Historic Resources. The GPU EIR described that certain development pursuant to the GPU may not be able to avoid impacts to historical resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce most impacts to a less than significant level. However, if significant impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
The GPR EIR determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future development under the GPU w ould be reduced to the maximum extent feasible but w ould still be significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
Archaeological Resources. The GPU EIR discussed that development involving ground disturbance has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources, and details that eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The City includes locations may have been used for prehistoric Native American occupation, and buried resources may remain. The EIR determined that there is a moderate likelihood that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment. Therefore, EIR mitigation requires that Phase I Cultural Resources studies be completed before ground disturbances and demolition activities are permitted to occur. The GPU EIR included Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL- 7 to reduce potential individual and cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site.
Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate resource sensitivity. The EIR determined that u pon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL- 4 through CUL -7, individual and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Human Remains. The EIR determined that the likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are
City Council
41 –
91 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
47 uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No New Impact. CEQA defines a historical resource as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).
The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
The Project site is currently developed with three office buildings, which are 34,000 square feet (1700 East Garry Avenue), 18,000 square feet (1720 East Garry Avenue), and 19,000 square feet (1740 East Garry Avenue) and were constructed between 1972 and 1974. The existing office structures are modern one-story cement and stucco buildings with windows that are surrounded by parking. T he buildings are currently between 48 and 50 years in age and were not identified as historic structures in the GPU , and no historic resources are located adjacent to the site.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment historical research identified that prior to development of the existing buildings, the site and surrounding areas were used for row crops. City directories confirm the site has since been occupied by various commercial office tenants that include: printers, carpet cleaners, roofers, and office uses, which are not historically significant.
A Historic Resources Assessment was prepared for the project site (Appendix C), which determined that the existing buildings on the Project site do not qualify for designation under the Local Register or the CRHR. The Project site and buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically, nor are they the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer under CRHR 3 / Local Register 1, 2, 3. No specific information was identified to indicate that the property exemplifies or represents a special element of Santa Ana’s history or is connected with a business or use that was once common but is now rare under CRHR 1 and 2 / Local Register 4 and 6. Also, the Historic Resources Assessment determined that the Project site is unlikely to yield information important to an archaeological site under CRHR 4 / Local Register 5.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact related to an adverse change in the significance of a historic resource.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. As described in the GPU EIR, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates, which were likely found in close proximity to the Santa Ana River. As required by General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure CUL- 4, an Archaeological Resources Assessment has been prepared and is included in Appendix D. The
City Council
41 –
92 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
48 Archaeological Resources Assessment describes that the Project site has been previously disturbed by grading, and fill soil was identified in soils tests to a depth of five to seven feet. The Archaeological Resources Assessment determined that based upon the previous grading disturbance of the site and the sparse number of recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity, the Project site has a very low potential to contain buried and in situ cultural resources. Thus, the Archaeological Resources Assessment determined that it is highly unlikely that any resources would be impacted by redevelopment of the site.
Based on the very low potential of the site for archaeological resources, the Project would not be required to implement GPU Mitigation Measure s (listed below) related to archeological monitoring. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No New Impact. The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nevertheless, should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project development, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods.
The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.
Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Project would not result in significant impacts t o human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to disturbance of human remains.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of cultural/archeological resources, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian
City Council
41 –
93 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
49 or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is applicable to the proposed Project as the onsite buildings were developed between 1972 and 1974 and are a minimum of 48 years old. A Historic Resources Assessment was prepared and is included as Appendix C.
CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities wil l conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource.
CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource.
Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narra tive; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and
City Council
41 –
94 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
50 historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve impacts to a historical resource.
CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground- disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.
Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL -4 is applicable to the proposed Project and an Archaeological Resources Assessment has been prepared and is included in Appendix D.
CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991).
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the Project MMRP.
CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission a s culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground- disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of th e discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric arc haeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long -term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation
City Council
41 –
95 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
51 with a r ecognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-6 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the site has been determined to have very low sensitivity for archaeological resources.
CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-7 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the site has been determined to have very low sensitivity for archaeological resources
City Council
41 –
96 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
52 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.6 ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.5‐15 through 5.5‐20. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU policies, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, w ould ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction of the proposed project would consume energy in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Construction activities related to the proposed development and the associated infrastructure is not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the Project site and region1.
Construction of the Project would result in fuel and electricity consumption from the use of construction tools and equipment, vendor and haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the site. There are no u nusual project characteristics that would cause the use of construction
1 Based on Appendix A of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, Construction consists of several types of off-road equipment. Since the majority of the off- road construction equipment used for construction projects are diesel fueled, CalEEMod assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel.
City Council
41 –
97 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
53 equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, construction -related fuel consumption by the Projec t would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and there would be no new impacts.
Operation
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipme nt (HVAC); energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc.
As previously described, the site is currently developed with three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet, and the Project would result in a smaller 91,500 square foot building, reducing the area that needs energy resources. Also, d ue to implementation of new technology and compliance with current Title 24 requirements, the Project would improve energy efficiency over the existing aged structures that were developed between 1972 and 1974. Thus, no wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy would occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New Impact. The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting. The City’s administr ation of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruc t opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. The non -residential building would be solar ready would have infrastructure as required by CCR Title 24 requirements. Thus, the proposed Project would not obstruct use of renewable energy or energy efficiency. Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no new impacts would occur.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of energy, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24 energy efficiency standards
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
98 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
54 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 Sp ecial
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 direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils 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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
City Council
41 –
99 12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
55 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.6‐20 through 5.6‐24. The GPU EIR discussed that the location and underlying geology of the City make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP Zoning Act in the City and all structures that would be constructed in accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as found in the latest CBC. Most of the City area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with respect to slope stability, as the City is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts t o a less than significant level. The EIR determined that the probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Also, the EIR determined that future development in the City would require connection to the City’s sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks.
The GPU EIR described that grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources.
Therefore, the GPU EIR included Mitigation M easures GEO-1 through GEO -3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO -1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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?
No New Impact . The Project site is not within an Alquist Priolo fault zone and is not in an area where structures are at significant risk from fault rupture. The closest published active fault to the site is the San Joaquin Hills Fault, approximately 2 miles from the Project site. Other active faults in the vicinity of the site include the onshore extension of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 5 miles southwest of the site, the Palos Verdes Fault, approximately 25 miles to the west, the Elsinore Fault, approximately 17 miles to the north. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to rupture of an earthquake fault in the Alquist Priolo fault zone.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact. As discussed previously, there are a number of potentially active and active fault systems located near the Project site. As required by California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 16 for the construction of new buildings or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts to human life and property caused by seismically induced ground shaking. Compliance with CBC Chapter 16 would be verified through the City’s plan check
City Council
41 –
100
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
56 and permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No New Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) describes that the Project site is mapped as being located within a liquefaction zone ; however, the liquefaction hazard is very low due to limited settlement potential and the general discontinuity of weaker soil layers across the site. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the CBC would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction.
Development of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the CBC, which are reviewed by the City for as part of the building plan check and development review process.
Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new hazards from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would occur.
iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. The Project site is topographically flat and is not near a hill or other area that could be vulnerable to landslides. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to landslides.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact. The Project site is flat and does not contain sloped conditions that would result in conditions outside of those evaluated under the GPU EIR. The Project would demolish the existing three buildings, landscaping, and pavement, and construct a new approximat ely 91,500 square foot industrial building .
During construction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increase in potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Development greater than one acre in size is required to comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit (CGP) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) , which includes implementation of standard erosion control practices as required by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The Project site is fully developed, and proposed development would not substantially change imperviousness of the site, resulting in impacts to stormwater runoff velocity or volume. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts in 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is not located within an area that is subject to landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. Also, as described previously, the liquefaction hazard is very low due to limited settlement potential and the general discontinuity of weaker soil layers across the site. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading would also be limited, Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new hazards related unstable geologic units or soils would occur. Appropriate design required by the CBC is reviewed by the City as part of the building plan check and development review process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
City Council
41 –
101
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
57 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No New Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation describes that the onsite soils have a medium to high expansion potential. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential for expansion. Compliance with the CBC would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction. Also, the Project includes over- excavation and re-compaction of the site soils to at least 7.5 and 3 feet below finished or existing grade (whichever is deeper) within building and pavement/flatwork areas, respectively, which would be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the CBC. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s municipal code for structural safety would provide that no new impacts related to expansive soils would occur.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No New Impact. The Project would be connected to sewer and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact. Although the GPU did not identify records of fossils from within the City, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) has records of 16 fossil localities within a five-mile radius of the City, with the closest fossil locality approximately 2.5 miles south of the City. According to the GPU EIR, the Project site is located within an area with a low potential for paleontological resources. However, as the Project includes over-excavation and re-compaction of the site soils to at least 7.5 feet below the existing grade into potentially native soils, GPU EIR Mitigation Measure GEO -2 would be required to be implemented to reduce potential impacts consistent with the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new i mpacts that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of geology and soils, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Building Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full -time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determin ed to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applica ble), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.
City Council
41 –
102
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
58 Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site is not located within a high paleontological sensitivity area.
GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low -to-high” paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monito red by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site is located within a low paleontological sensitivity area and will be included in the MMRP for the proposed Project.
GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50 -foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified, and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure GEO-3 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the MMRP for the proposed Project.
City Council
41 –
103
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
59 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed greenhouse gas emission s (GHG) impacts on pages 5. 7‐31 through 5.7‐40. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and monitoring the City’s GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year 2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S- 03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal, but in the meantime, the EIR determined that impacts would be significant and u navoidable. The EIR included a mitigation measure to require the City to update the Climate Action Plan every 5 years. However, this is not a project specific mitigation measure, and not directly related to development projects. The EIR determined that the GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact. The GPU EIR describes (on page 5.7 -20) that if project emissions are below the 3,000 MTCO2e bright-line screening threshold, GHG emissions impacts would be considered less than significant.
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is provided in Table GHG- 1, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions . As shown, the Project construction would result in approximately 483 MTCO2e. Per SCAQMD methodology construction GHG emissions are amortized over 30 years, then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 16 MTCO2e per year.
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
City Council
41 –
104
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
60 Table GHG-1: Construction-Related GHG Emissions
Category MTCO2e
Construction Year 1 274
Construction Year 2 209
Total Construction Emissions 483
30-Year Amortized Construction 16
Source: GHG Assessment (Appendix F)
Operational or long-term GHG emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table GHG-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which shows that the Project would generate approximately 1, 668 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations of the Project. As such, the Project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e bright- line screening threshold and no new impacts would occur.
Table GHG-2: Proposed Project GHG Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Area 0
Energy 121
Mobile 806
Off-road 625
Waste 22
Water 78
Amortized Construction Emissions 16
Total Annual Project GHG Emissions 1,668
Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: GHG Assessment (Appendix F)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. As described above, the proposed Project would implement new FLEX-3 land uses that are consistent with the GPU. The GPU EIR describes that new buildings associated with land uses accommodated under the proposed land use plan of the GPU, such as the proposed project, would be built to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits.
Thus, the developments pursuant to the GPU, such as the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan or SCAG Regional Transportation Plan.
SB 375 required SCAG to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG adopted the Connect SoCal Plan in May 2020. The Connect SoCal plan would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region by projecting development that is generally consistent with regional -level
City Council
41 –
105
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
61 general plan data and implementing transportation projects. The GPU includes the following goals and policies to support the GHG reduction:
• Conservation Element, Goal 3: Reduce consumption of and reliance on non -renewable energy to support the development and use of renewable energy sources (Policies 3.3 and 3.11). • Land Use Element, Goal 4 : Support a sustainable Santa Ana through improvements to the built environment and a culture of collaboration (Policy 4.5).
In addition, as discussed in Table 5.7 -7 of the GPU , the GPU EIR found the GPU to be consisten t with applicable polices from the SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. SCAG RTP/SCS policies and strategies that were evaluated include:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options
• Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Support Implementation of Sustainable Policies
The Project would not conflict with identified SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS Goals and strategies.
Additionally, Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, include policies from the GPU that are pertinent to the Project. The Project was found to be consistent with all applicable policies. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Consistency with the Santa Ana CAP. The City of Santa Ana has an adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP).
For community-wide emissions, the CAP reduction goal is 15% below the baseline year 2008 by 2020, and 30% below the baseline year 2 008 by 2035 . The CAP includes community -wide measures that are collectively estimated to reduce emissions by 47,909 MTCO2e/year by 2035. The CAP recommends several measures that would achieve GHG reductions including installation of solar photovoltaic systems and compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
In support of these measures the Project would be implemented pursuant to the CALGreen Building (Title 24).
The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include increased insulation; use of energy and water efficient appliances; water efficient plumbing and fixtures; Low-E windows, high performance; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); and more. In addition, the non- residential b uilding would be solar ready would have infrastructure as required by Title 24 requirements. In complying with the Title 24 standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would not obstruct the City of Santa Ana CAP GHG reduction and would therefore not result in a new impact.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of greenhouse gas emissions, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24 energy efficiency standards
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
106
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
62 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed energy impacts on pages 5.8‐36 through 5.8‐46. The GPU EIR discussed that construction and operations under the GPU would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Furthermore, the EIR describes that strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority would be required. The GPU buildout is expected
Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.9 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 which 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?
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 or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
City Council
41 –
107
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
63 to result in some increase in the number of hazardous waste generators; however, the EIR determined that hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release.
The EIR describes that the City includes sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment.
The EIR also describes that Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process.
The EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes.
Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies.
Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and the EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would not expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact.
Construction. Project construction would require demolition of an existing buildings that were developed between 1972 and 1974 and construction of a new light industrial building, which would require grading activity. Buildings constructed in or before 1981 are presumed to contain asbestos containing materials, such as, floor tile/mastic, wall stucco, insulation, and roof mastic. An asbestos survey of the existing building would be conducted prior to demolition, as required by City permitting. Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing asbestos are present. These requirements include: SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, and Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations. Asbestos abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the State Department of Health Services. In addition, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, a vailability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling hazardo us materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee-training programs. All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. Adherence to existing regulations, which require appropriate testing and abatement actions for hazardous materials, would minimize exposure to asbestos during construction activities.
Proposed construction activities would also involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of other hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and other construction -related materials. In addition,
City Council
41 –
108
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
64 hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site.
These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City of Santa Ana during building permitting for construction activities. As a result, no new impa cts related to hazardous material impacts during construction would occur.
Operation
Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to a speculative light industrial building .
Although the Project would likely utilize common types of hazardous materials, normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment or workers within or in the vicinity of the Project. Per the GPU EIR, both the federal and state governments require all businesses that handle more than a specified volume of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to a regulating agency. Specifically, any new business that meets the specified criteria must submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report that includes an inventory of the hazardous materials generated, used, stored, handled, or emitted; and emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. The plans a nd permits are reviewed by the Fire Department and Building and Safety Departments, as part of project permitting procedures. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to 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?
No New Impact.
Construction
The Project includes the demoliti on of an existing building s and construction of a new, slightly larger light industrial building. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the Project to assess potential hazardous impacts, included as Appendix H. The assessment identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions on the site. The only identified issues concern groundwater contamination from offsite sources. As detailed in the Project Description, the Project is anticipated to excavate to approximately
7.5 feet below the existing grade. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E ) identified groundwater at 12 feet below grade and the depth to high groundwater is 10 feet below grade. Thus, construction of the Project is not anticipated to encounter contaminated groundwater. However, should groundwater be encountered, existing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) measures would be implemented through the City’s typical construction permitting process.
To further avoid an impact related to an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit. Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on -site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Operation
The Project would include operation of a speculative light industrial building. As discussed above, operational use of hazardous materials on the Project site would be subject to federal, state, and local requirements that
City Council
41 –
109
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
65 aim to avoid and minimize the potential release of hazardous substances. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is contracted with the City of Santa Ana and would inspect the facility to ensure compliance with proper handling measures identified in the hazardous materials disclosure report and emergency response plan. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a school . The site is located within a commercial and industrial area. As described in the previous responses, Project construction and operation would involve the use and disposal of various hazardous materials. However, all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal state regulations that are implemented by the City.
While the Project would involve the use and disposal of various hazardous materials, compliance with federal and state regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and impacts would be consistent with the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to hazardous emissions within on-quarter mile of a school.
d) Be located on a site which 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 New Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix H) included database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not result a new impact related to hazardous material s sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project 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 New Impact. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to a safet y hazard related to an airport. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport that is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the safety zones of the airport. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to airport safety hazards.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. The Project would include demolition of the existing three office buildings and construction of a new light industrial building. The Project would not result in roadway closure, or other activities that could impact emergency response or evacuation. During short-term construction activities, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any substantial traffic queuing on nearby streets, and all construction equipment would be staged within the Project site. During the operational phase of the proposed Project, onsite access would be required to comply with standards established by the City. The proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via Garry Avenue. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
City Council
41 –
110
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
66 No New Impact. According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) is approximately 4.0 miles east of the City along the western edge of Loma Ridge, and about 3.8 miles away from the City at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Fire Hazard Severity Zones map, the Project is not within an area identified as a fire hazard safety zone (FHSZ). Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of hazards and hazardous materials, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an i mpact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
111
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
67 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or riv er or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) 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;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
City Council
41 –
112
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
68 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 5.9‐29 through
5.9‐38. The GPU EIR discusse d that projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off-site or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the EIR determined that development pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New Impact.
Construction
Implementation of the proposed Project includes grading, site preparation, construction of new building, and infrastructure improvements. These activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water quality. Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction -related materials and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality.
Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality.
However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (and Municipal Code Section 18-156) would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer (QSD) is required to be included in the SWPPP for the Project.
Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements, and the City’s Municipal Code , which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting pr ocess, would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would not occur.
City Council
41 –
113
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
69 Operation
The proposed Project would operate an industrial warehouse, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. H owever, the on-site runoff will be collected into catch basins with filter inserts that are located throughout the site, drain into the underground storm drain system. Proposed development is compliant with the requirements set by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the RWQCB hydrology and LID standards, as described in the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I and Appendix J) that were prepared for the Project. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration and treatment of the site’s runoff. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact. Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge capabilities of a given landscape. The Project site is currently developed , and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identified that it is 85 percent covered with impervious surface s. The Project proposes to demolish the existing 3 buildings and pavement and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface and reduction of groundwater recharge would not occur from the Project. Also, the Project would be required to comply with Orange County DAMP permit by employing BMPs for on-site detention/retention of stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.
Additionally, water to the Project site would be provided by City of Santa Ana that is dependent on surface water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) from the Colorado River and Northern California and the Orange County Water District that manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Further, the change of the site from three office buildings to one light industrial warehouse building would not generate an increased demand for groundwater. Therefore, the Project would not result new impacts on groundwater supplies or recharge.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No New Impact. As discussed above, construction related to implementation of the proposed Project would expose and loosen building materials and sediment which has t he potential to mix with stormwater runoff and result in erosion or siltation offsite. However, as described previously, a SWPPP (required by Municipal Code Section 18-156) would be developed for the Project. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. SWPPP implementation would include monitoring by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) throughout Project construction to ensure site compliance with the SWPPP and CGP requirements.
The Project site would be redeveloped with a light industrial building, parking, and landscaping. P ost construction conditions would not include exposed soils and would not be susceptible to substantial erosion.
LID would be incorporated into Project site design in compliance with the WQMP that would capture and treat stormwater runoff on site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact
City Council
41 –
114
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
70 ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would include construction activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on - or off-site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the proposed construction requires a SWPPP, which would address site specific dra inage issues related to construction activities and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities.
The Project site is currently developed, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identified that it is 85 percent covered with impervious surfaces. The Project proposes to demolish the existing 3 buildings and pavement and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface that could result in flooding would not occur. Also, the Project includes installation of a drainage system that would be required to meet the Orange County DAMP requirements, as ensured through Project permitting, and would connect to the existing offsite drainage.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new impact related to flooding on- or off-site.
iii. 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 New Impact. As described in the previous response, the Project site is currently developed, an d the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix J) identified that it is 85 percent impervious. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan identifies that after Project construction, the site would also be 85 percent impervious. Thus, an increase of impervious surface that could generate additional runoff would not occur. Also, the Project includes installation of a drainage system that would be required to meet the Orange County DAMP requirements, as ensured through Project permitting, and would connect to the existing offsite drainage. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. The Project site does not lie within a 100- or 500- year floodplain, as delineated by FEMA.
The Project site is within Zone X, Area of minimal Flood Hazard. The Project would not result in alteration of existing drainage (flows or capacity) that could directly or indirectly impact onsite drainages or the adjacent areas. Therefore, the Project would not result a new impact related to flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact. The Project site is not within a flood hazard zone, and flooding impacts are not anticipated.
Tsunamis are tidal waves generally caused by earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Project site is approximately 8 miles from the Pacific Ocean shor eline. Based on the inland location of the site, the Project site is not within a tsunami zone.
A seiche is a wave created in a landlocked body of water (e.g. , a lake or reservoir) from back -and-forth movement of the water resulting from high winds or an earthquake. There are no bodies of water near the Project site. Thus, impacts due to seiche would not occur. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to release of pollutants due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
City Council
41 –
115
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
71 No New Impact. As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would not occur. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
The Preliminary WQMP for the Project complies with the Orange County DAMP. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan.
Also, the OCWD manages basin water supply through the Basin Production Percentage, such that, the anticipated production of groundwater would remain steady, and as described previously the change of the site from three office buildings to one light industrial warehouse building would not result in increases for groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the groundwater management p lan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation, and no new impacts would occur.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of hydrology and water quality, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Municipal Code Section 18-156; Control of Urban Runoff.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
116
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
72 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed land use and planning impacts on pages 5.10‐18 through 5.10‐
28. The GPU EIR determined that i mplementation of the GPU would not divide an established community.
Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments’ RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact. The Project would demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial building. The proposed Project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations and would not introduce roadways or other infrastr ucture improvements that would bisect or transect the Project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to dividing an established community.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No New Impact.
The Project site has a GPU designation of FLEX -3. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which is less than the maximum FAR of 3.0 allowable in the FLEX-3 designated area. As described in the GPU Land Use Element, the FLEX -3 designation allows for office /industrial flex spaces (such as the Project) , R&D, clean manufacturing, and corporate headquarters . The GPU states that adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use designation will promote large -scale office/industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development uses in beautiful and creative buildings and spaces. The proposed Project would be consistent with the FLEX -3 land use designation and with the 55 Freeway and Dyer Road Focus Areas, as evaluated in the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact
City Council
41 –
117
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
73 related to conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of land use and planning, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
118
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
74 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed mineral resource impacts on pages 5.11‐6 through 5.11‐7. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU buildout would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No New Impact. The California Department of Conservation does not designate the city as being within a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA), nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. The GPU and GPU EIR also did not identify mineral resources within the City, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No New Impact. The GPU do es not include any designated areas of locally important mineral resource recovery. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to locally important mineral resources.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of mineral resources, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
City Council
41 –
119
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
75 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
120
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
76 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.13 NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or 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 p roject area to
excessive noise levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed noise impacts on pages 5.12‐29 through 5.12‐50.
Construction Noise. The GPU EIR d escribed that Mitigation Measure N -1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Operational Noise. The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards and that Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise - sensitive receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing residences along affected roadways. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
Construction Vibration Impacts. The GPU EIR discussed that c onstruction activity would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment, that has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). The EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 and adherence to associated performance standards, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
City Council
41 –
121
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
77 Operational Vibration Impacts. The GPU EIR discussed that commercial and industrial operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment.
The EIR determined that w ith implementation of Mitigation Measures N -3 and N -4 and adherence to associated performance standards, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less-than-significant levels.
The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact.
General Plan Noise Standards
The GPU includes standards related to excessive noise levels. The City’s General Plan noise standards for noise-sensitive land uses are provided in Table N-1.
Table N-1: City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards
Land Use Category Sensitive Land Use
Noise Level (dBA CNEL)
Interior Exterior
Residential Single-family, duplex, multi family 45 65
Institutional Hospital, school classroom/playgrounds, church, library 45 65 Open Space Parks -- 65
Source: City of Santa Ana Noise Element
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code
Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 18 -313, noise levels at residential properties are restricted from exceeding certain noise levels for extended periods of time. Table 5.10-3 provides the Municipal Code exterior noise standards that are applied to residential properties.
Table N-2: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Residential Noise Standards Time
Permissible Noise Levels (dBA)
L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75
Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article VI, Section 18-312.
With respect to construction-related noise, Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City’s Municipal Code specifies that noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City’s established noise standards as long as the activiti es do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
Existing Noise Levels
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, noise measurements were conducted on April 8, 2021. As shown in table N-3, existing ambient noise ranges between 62.3 and 66.5 dBA Leq.
City Council
41 –
122
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
78 Table N-3: Noise Measurements
Site Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Time
1 Along the east side of East Garry Avenue approximately 500 feet south of Pullman Street
64.9 58.5 79.0 12:00 p.m.
2 Along the east side of Alton Parkway approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Daimler Street and Alton Parkway
66.5 52.2 82.8 12:20 p.m.
3 Along the western portion of Duryea Avenue, approximately 500 feet south of SR-55 62.3 57.6 73.9 12:38 p.m.
Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K)
Construction
Project construction activities for the proposed P roject are anticipated to include demolition of the existing three buildings and pavement, site preparation and grading of the Project site, building construction of a new 91,500 square foot light industrial building, paving of onsite driveways, parking lots and truck loading area, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project site are the single-family homes located as near as approximately 2,200 feet north of the Project site. In addition, a dialysis center is located 700 feet to the northeast of the site.
Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City’s Municipal Code specifies that noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City’s established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated as part of the Acoustical Assessment completed for the Project included as Appendix K . Anticipated construction equipm ent noise emissions are identified below. As shown the highest construction noise would be 66.4 dBA Leq.
Table N-4 Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Receptor Worst Case
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceeded?
Land Use Direction Distance
(feet)
Demolition
Commercial Northeast 700 63.5 85 No
Residential North 2,200 53.6 80 No
Site Preparation
Commercial Northeast 700 64.7 85 No
Residential North 2,200 54.8 80 No
Grading
Commercial Northeast 700 64.4 85 No
Residential North 2,200 54.4 80 No
Building Construction Commercial Northeast 700 66.4 85 No Residential North 2,200 56.4 80 No
Paving
Commercial Northeast 700 63.6 85 No
Residential North 2,200 53.7 80 No
Architectural Coating Commercial Northeast 700 50.8 85 No Residential North 2,200 40.8 80 No
Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K)
Table N-4 shows that construction noise levels would not exceed the 85/80 -dBA threshold and would not exceed the City’s municipal code allowable L max. Additionally, compliance with Section 18 -314 (Special
City Council
41 –
123
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
79 Provisions) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code would minimize impacts from constructio n noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours. Therefore, no new impacts related to construction activities would occur.
Operation
The proposed Project would consist of the development of an industrial building. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Project would be from Project -generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite activities, which have been modeled and identified below.
Mechanical Equipment. Stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g. heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. At 700 feet away, the location of the dialysis center, mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to 29.1 dBA, which is below the City’s 65 dBA standard. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and man euvering away from the docks. Loading or unloading activities would occur on the east and southeast side of the Project site. Vehicular access to the proposed Project site would consist of two driveways along Garry Avenue on the east/northeast side of the Project site. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet. At 700 feet northeast of the proposed loading areas , the dialysis center would experience truck noise levels of approximately 40.6 dBA, which is belo w the City’s acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise.
Additionally, these noise levels would also be further attenuated by the intervening structures. Loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Noise levels associated with trucks and loading or unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standards and no new impacts would occur.
Parking Noise. The Project would provide parking stalls, t railer parking stalls, and loading spaces on the north and south of the proposed warehouse building near the site perimeter. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time - averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass -bys range from 53 to 61 dBA at 50 feet. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adja cent sensitive receptors if any. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standard s in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.
Actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the existing ambient noise levels identified above. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on-site and would be up to 38.1 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor (which is below the City’s 65 dBA threshold) located approximately 700 feet away. Parking lot noise also currently occurs at the adjacent properties under existing conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by background noise from traffic along Garry Avenue and SR-55. Therefore, no new noise impacts from parking lots would occur from the Project.
Off-Site Traffic Noise. As detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation, Table T-1, the proposed Project would result in a reduction of trips by 915 daily
PCE trips, which include 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour than the existing three office buildings . Due to the decrease in traffic, no new traffic related noise impacts would result from the Project.
City Council
41 –
124
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
80 b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Construction
No New Impact. Construction activities for the proposed Project would include demolition, excavation, and grading activities, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People working in close proximity to the Project site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vib rations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site.
Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Potential impacts of the Project are compared to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations in their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold for annoyance, as shown on Table N-5. The closest structure is the commercial use located approximately 40 feet from the Project construction area. Also, as shown Table N-5, construction VdB levels would not exceed 81 VdB at 40 feet (i.e., below the 100 VdB structural damage threshold). Therefore, no new impacts related to construction would occur from implementation of the Project.
Table N-5: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
PPV at 25
Feet (in/sec)
PPV at 40
Feet (in/sec)
VdB at
25 Feet
VdB at 40
Feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0440 87 81
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0440 87 81
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0376 86 80
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0173 79 73
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0015 58 52
Source: Acoustical Assessment (Appendix K)
Operation
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration. Groundborne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses ) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the proposed Project would include passenger cars and trucks. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic -induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity . Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to ground born vibration.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 New Impact. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport that is located approximately 1.5 miles
City Council
41 –
125
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
81 south of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels from aircraft.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Municipal Code Chapter 18, Article 7 Noise and Vibration Control (Noise Ordinance).
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise- producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically
City Council
41 –
126
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
82 adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back -up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq.
Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-1 is applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in the Project MMRP.
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-2 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve pile driving and no fragile structures are located near the Project site.
N-3 New residential projects (or other noise-sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-3 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve development of residences and the site is not within 200 feet of a railroad.
N-4 During the project -level California Env ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelin es, practices, and precedents.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure N-4 is applicable to the proposed Project and an acoustical assessment has been completed and provided in Appendix K.
City Council
41 –
127
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
83 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR addressed population and housing impacts on pages 5.13‐12 through 5.13‐15. The GPU EIR determined that full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the C ity’s 2045 population growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of Governments’ 2045 projections. Furthermore, the city’s housing units at buildout would be 115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments’ projection by 38 percent. The EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or housing , and impacts related to people and housing displacement would not occur.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. The proposed Project would not directly result in unplanned population growth because it does not propose any residential dwelling units and development of the Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site, which are used by both local and regional agencies to determine anticipated growth.
The FLEX-3 GPU land use designation allows for a FAR of 3.0 and the Interim Development Standard of M- 1 does not include standards for lot size or density. The proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0. 42, which is within the allowable FLEX-3 FAR; and the Project would be consistent with the M-1 (Light Industrial) development standards. Therefore, the Project is consistent with conditions evaluated under the GPU EIR and the Project would result in no new impacts related to unplanned population growth.
City Council
41 –
128
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
84 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. The Project proposes demolition of three existing office buildings and construction of a new light industrial building that would accommodate two tenants . The Project would not result in displacement of existing housing or necessitate the need for housing elsewhere. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
129
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
85 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause signif icant
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed public service impacts on pages 5.14‐11 through 5.14‐47. The GPU EIR The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center. The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval the GPU would not create significant impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school services.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The proposed Project would remove the existing 3 office buildings that total 103,031 square feet and develop one new light industrial building that would be 91,500 square feet and would accommodate two tenants. Based on the GPU buildout methodology, the existing office buildings generate 1 employee per 286 square feet, which would total 360 existing employees on the site at full occupancy. The GPU buildout methodology identifies that warehouses generate 1 employee per 800 square feet. Thus, full occupancy of the proposed Project would generate 114 employees, resulting in a reduction of 246 employees on the site. a) Fire Protection
City Council
41 –
130
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
86 No New Impact. The nearest fire station is OCFA Fire Station 79 , located at 1320 E Warner Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles to the Project site. The new industrial warehouse employees would replace the existing office employees on the site and result in a reduction of approximately 246 employees onsite at full occupancy. In addition, the existing older buildings would be replaced with new buildings with current fire safety infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project use is not anticipated to increase the in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services , and the Project would not require construction of a new or physically altered fire station that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to fire protection services.
b) Police Protection
No New Impact. The nearest City of Santa Ana Police Station is the Santa Ana Southeast Substation, located at 1780 McFadden Ave #114B approximately 2.9 miles to north of the Project site. As described above, the Project would not increase the number of employees on the site. The proposed Project land use and operation would be similar to existing conditions. Crime rate and population density are not anticipated to be impact by the Project , and the new building would include current security measures that would be reviewed by the City during the development permitting process. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to police protection.
c) School Services
No New Impact. The nearest public school facilities include Monroe Elementary School (1.6 miles to the northwest), Manuel Esqueda Elementary School (2.2 miles to the northwest), Cesar E. Chavez High School (2.2 miles to the northwest), and Douglas MacArthur Fundamental Intermediate (2.2 miles to the west). The Project does not include any housing and would not directly create additional students to be served by schools. In addition, the Project would not increase the number of employees on site that could indirectly impact school attendance rates. Therefore, the Project would not result new impacts related to school services.
d) Parks
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing; and would not directly increase the residential population of the City and generate additional need for parkland.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to parks.
e) Other Public Facilities
No New Impact. The Project would not result in a direct increase in the population of the Project site and would not increase the demand for public services, including public health services and library services which would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to other public facilities.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Fire Code, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 14.
City Council
41 –
131
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
87 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.
City Council
41 –
132
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
88 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.16 RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed recreation impacts on pages 5.15‐27 through 5.15‐31. The GPU EIR discussed that the GPU would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such that substant ial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated. The GPU EIR describes that buildout of the GPU would require construction or expansion of recreation facilities that could result in environmental impacts, and although required park fees for development could be sufficient to fund new parks and improvements, there is a lack of available land and lack of land designated as Open Space to develop new parks or expand existing facilities. The City of Santa Ana is essentially built. The GPU EIR includes Mitigation Measure REC -1 to monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area would contribute to reducing impacts to existing public parks within a 0.5 radius of the focus area. Compliance with this mitigation measure, regulatory requirements, and implementation of proposed GPU policies and implementation actions would reduce the potential impact of the proposed GPU on existing park facilities. However, the GPU EIR determined that because of the existing park deficiencies and scale of development in park-deficient areas, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing; and would not directly increase the residential population of the City and generate additional need for parkland such that use of existing facilities would increase and physical deterioration would be accelerated. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to physical deterioration of park facility.
City Council
41 –
133
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
89 b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact. The Project does not propose the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As discussed above, the Project would not create an additional need for housing and would not directly increase the residential population of the City to generate additional need for recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no new impacts related to expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Recreation, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate the project’s potential impacts on existing public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius.
If the study determines that the project, or it’s incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact.
Measures to mitigate
the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair-share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure REC-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not involve residential development.
City Council
41 –
134
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
90 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.17 TRANSPORTATION. Would th e
project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed transportation impacts on pages 5.16‐25 through 5.16‐37. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Also, the EIR determined that circulation improvements associated with future development pursuant to the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact. The Project would change the site from three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet to one 91,500 square foot light industrial warehouse building that would accommodate two tenants.
Based on the existing square footage, it is estimated that the existing office buildings generate approximately 1,117 daily trips, with 157 trips (138 inbound and 19 outbound) in the AM peak hour, and 148 trips (25 inbound and 123 outbound) in the PM peak hour.
Table T-1 identifies the number of trips that would be generated by the Project. The Project trip generation is broken out by vehicle type and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors are applied to the truck trips to determine the PCE trip generation. Passenger car equivalent factors account for the additional roadway capacity utilized by trucks due to their larger size, slower acceleration and reduced maneuver ability when compared to passenger cars. As shown , the proposed light industrial warehouse building would generate
City Council
41 –
135
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
91 915 fewer trips on a daily basis than the existing office buildings, with 137 fewer trips in the AM peak hour, and 126 fewer trips during the PM peak hour.
The proposed light industrial warehouse building would generate 203 daily PCE trips including 20 AM peak hour and 22 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the existing trips generated from the existing three office buildings, the daily number of trips would be reduced by 915 trips, including 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour . Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to roadway circulation.
Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
ITE Land Use
ITE
Code
Unit
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
General Office Building 710 KSF 10.84 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.25 1.20 1.44 Warehousing 150 KSF 1.710 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 Project Trip Generation
Project Land Use
Quantity
Unit
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Use
General Office Building 103.031 KSF 1,117 138 19 157 25 123 148 Proposed Use
Warehousing 91.500 KSF 156 12 4 16 5 12 17
Passenger Ve hicles
79.57%
124 10 3 13 4 10 14
Trucks 20.43% 32 2 1 3 1 2 3
Project Trips – Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE)
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix Daily
Vehicles
PCE
Factor
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Passenger
V ehicles
79.57% 124 1.0 124 10 3 13 4 10 14
2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 5 1.5 8 1 0 1 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 7 2.0 14 1 0 1 0 1 1
4+ Axle Trucks 12.33% 19 3.0 57 4 1 5 2 4 6
Total Truck PCE Trips 79 6 1 7 2 6 8
Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 203 16 4 20 6 16 22
Net Trips (Proposed PCE - Existing) -915 -122 -15 -137 -19 -107 -126 Source: Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum, Appendix L
There is currently no transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities near the Project site. The closest OCTA bus stop is located at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Alton Parkway, approximately 0.6 mile from the Project site. In addition, there are no bicycle lanes or sidewalks near the Project site. The Project would not result in new impacts to transit or bicycle facilities. The proposed Project would install a new sidewalk along Garry Avenue and the site frontage that would improve the existing pedestrian circulation at the site . Thus, the Project would also not result in new impacts to pedestrian facilities. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in new impacts related to transportation.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013 and changed the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impact under CEQA. A key element of this law is the elimination of using auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The legislative intent of SB 743 was to "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of pu blic health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse
City Council
41 –
136
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
92 gas (GHG) emissions." According to the law, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., a city’s General Plan), studies, congestion management and transportation improvements, but these metrics may no longer constitute the basis for transportation impacts under CEQA analysis as of July 1, 2020. For example, in the City, the General Plan identifies LOS as being a required analysis, and even though it will no longer be a requirement of CEQA, unless the General Plan is amended, LOS will continue to be analyzed as part of Project review.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Based on input from the public, public agencies, and various organizations, OPR recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) be the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA.
As shown in Table T-1, the existing three office buildings currently generates 1,117 daily trips including 157 trips during the AM peak hour and 148 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed light industrial warehouse would generate 203 daily PCE trips including 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 22 trips during the PM peak hour. When compared to the existing office buildings, the Project would generate 915 fewer daily trips, including 137 less trips in the AM peak hour and 126 less trips in the PM peak hour. Based on the City’s VMT screening threshold, projects that generate or add 110 or fewer daily trips are considered less than significant impact and do not require a VMT analysis. Because the Project would result in a reduction of vehicle trips , it would not exceed the City’s VMT screening threshold, and no new impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would occur.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Impact. The proposed Project includes only an industrial warehouse facility. There are no proposed uses that would be incompatible. The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. Operation of the proposed P roject would involve trucks entering and exiting the Project site from Garry Avenue for access to the loading bays via two 30-foot-wide driveways (on driveway to serve each tenant) on either site of the proposed building. The onsite circulation design prepared for the Project provides fire truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the site. Thus, no impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would occur from the proposed Project. Also, Project improvements would be consistent with development standards for streets, sidewalks, and other public places as specified in Chapter 33 of the City Municipal Code. The City Department of Public Works would ensure plans are consistent with design standards as part of building permitting. Therefore , the Project would not result in new impacts related to hazards due to a design feature.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project may require the temporary closure of one lane of Garry Avenue.
However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and that no new impacts would occur.
City Council
41 –
137
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
93 Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project would be accessed from a driveway along G arry Avenue.
The site would include vehicle and truck access . The design and permitting of the onsite circulation would provide adequate and safe circulation . Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City no new impacts related to inadequate emergency access would occur from the Project.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of transportation, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
138
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
94 Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a Calif ornia
Native American tribe?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed tribal cultural resource impacts on pages 5.17‐13 through 5.17‐
15. The GPU EIR describes that the Sacred Land File search for the GPU yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records sear ch at SCCIC indicated that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the City. Of these resources, eight archaeological resources were located within the City, which include four prehistoric sites with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The GPU EUR also describes that the City includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation, and that while the City is urbanized, buried re sources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance. Additionally, the GPU EIR describes that the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the C ity, and that buildout of the GPU may cause a substantial advers e change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would be required to reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
City Council
41 –
139
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
95 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR (Impact 4.13 -6) and was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
As detailed previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not meet any of the historic resource criteria and does not meet the definition of an historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing. As such, the Project would result in no new impacts related to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing and have cultural value to a California Native American tribe.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No New Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In ad dition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum.
As described in the GPU EIR , eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The City includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation, and buried resources may remain in areas where developments such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal ground disturbance.
In addition, Project site soils consist of quaternary alluvium and undocumented fill materials that have the potential to include tribal cultural resources. Based on the moderate sensitivity of the site for resources, the Project would be required to implement GPU Mitigation Measure CUL -6 that requires a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the Project area to monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas of high sensitivity , which would reduce impacts consistent with the requirements of the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of tribal cultural resources, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
City Council
41 –
140
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
96 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-6, listed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
City Council
41 –
141
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
97 Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) 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?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The Final Recirculated GPU EIR addressed utilities and service system impacts on pages 5.18 ‐35 through
5.18‐64. The GPU EIR discusse d that d evelopment pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure would support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU. Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. The EIR also describes that d evelopment pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore, GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities
City Council
41 –
142
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
98 would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with r elated solid waste regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the EIR determined that the net increase in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas forecasts that it would supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New Impact. The Project proposes to demolish the existing three office buildings that total 103,031 square feet, landscaping, and pavement, and construct a new 91,500 square foot light industrial warehouse building with landscaping that would accommodate two tenants.
Water
The Project site is currently served by the City’s water utility. The proposed Project would install new water lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch water line within Garry Avenue. The Project would not require construction of new or expanded offsite water lines. The removal of the existing three office buildings and development of one light industrial warehousing building would not result in an increase in water demand , and no additional water lines are required.
Wastewater
The proposed Project would install new onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line within Garry Avenue. The Project would not require construction of new or expanded offsite sewer lines. The removal of the existing three office buildings and development of one light industrial warehousing building would not result in an increase in wastewater generation, and no expansions to the wastewater treatment system would be required.
Stormwater
The Project would install a new onsite drainage system that would connect to the existing 18 -inch drain in Daimler Street. The onsite drainage would convey runoff to biofiltration basins that would treat flows prior to discharge, and reduce flows as required by the Orange County DAMP, which would be ensured through the Project permitting process. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not increase stormwater runoff, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off -site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing off-site facilities.
Electric Power
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities.
Natural Gas
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new gas facilities.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to construction of new or expanded utilities that could result in significant environmental effects.
City Council
41 –
143
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
99 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
No New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate a 1,660,558 gallon per day increase in water demand that would be within the planned supplies from the City, the Orange County Water District, and Metropolitan during normal-dry and multiple-dry year scenario. The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less water demand than the GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing water supplies, and no new impacts related to water supplies would occur.
c) 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 New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate 538,450 gallons per day of wastewater. The GPU EIR also details that that the increase would be accommodated by OCSD’s Treatment Plant No. 1. The proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less wastewater generation than the GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing wastewater infrastructure, and no new impacts related to wastewater facilities would occur.
d) Generate solid waste i n excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No New Impact. Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR describes that operation of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area at buildout (including development of the Project site at a FAR of 3.0) is anticipated to generate 275,728 pounds per day of solid waste. The GPU EIR also details that the Orange County solid waste landfill system would have the ability to provide for the GPU with long-term solid waste landfill capacity.
The Project would result in a FAR of 0.42, which would result in a smaller building that would generate less solid waste than t he GPU EIR anticipated with a building density of 3.0 FAR on the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be accommodated by the existing landfills and no new impacts related to landfill facilities would occur.
In addition, the Project would comply with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Also, pursuant to AB 341, at least 75 percent of the solid waste that is generated during Project operation is required to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact. As discussed above, the Project would be anticipated to result in 63.45 tons per year. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.
City Council
41 –
144
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
100
The proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new impacts related to conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of utilities and service systems, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
145
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
101
Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
5.20 WILDFIRES. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR de scribes that according to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) i s approximately 4.0 miles east of the City along the western edge of Loma Ridge, and about 3.8 miles away from the City at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs. Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that no impacts related to wildfires would occur.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles via Project roadways. A fire lane is included in Project design to provide adequate access for fire services. Furthermore, the Project would not result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of any public road that would impair or interfere with the implementation of evacuation procedures. Therefore, The Project would result in no new impacts related to impairment of an emergency response plan.
City Council
41 –
146
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
102
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No New Impact. The Project proposes a light industrial development on a developed site within an area characterized by existing industrial, commercial, and office uses. As such, the Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks as compared to existing conditions because it is representative of existing development in the area. The Project site is not in an area identified at risk of fire hazard as identified within the GPU EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in new impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No New Impact. The Project would not include the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No New Impact. As previously discussed in Section 5.10, the Project site is not in an area susceptible to flooding and would not result in changes to drainage . Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.7, the Project site is not in an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Conclusion
Therefore, with regards to the issue area of wildfire, the following findings can be made:
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Fire Code, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 14.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
City Council
41 –
147
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
103
6 Document Preparers and Contributors
Lead Agency:
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
CEQA Document Preparer:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Konnie Dobreva, JD
Brooke Blandino
Meaghan Rupard
City Council
41 –
148
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
104
7 References
California State Scenic Highway Syst em Map . Accessed:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
City of Santa Ana General Plan Update , 2022. Accessed: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan- documents/
City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - October 2021. Accessed: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan-environmental-documents/ City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Accessed:
https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=SAANMUCO Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. "EnviroStor Database." Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1700-1740 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Air Quality Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA.
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA.
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. " Acoustical Assessment 1700 Garry Avenue Project" City of Santa Ana, CA.
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. "Trip Generation Comparison and VMT Assessment Memorandum for the Proposed Garry Avenue Business Park Project in the City of Santa Ana".
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021. " Preliminary Hydrology and Hydrau lics Study for 1700 Garry Avenue" City of Santa Ana, CA.
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 2021 . " Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Garry Avenue Business Park" City of Santa Ana, CA.
Rocks Biological Consulting, 2021. "Biological Assessment for the Garry Avenue Project, Santa Ana" Stony Miller Consulting. 2020. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Garry Avenue Business Park." South Coast Air Quality Management District. n.d. "RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings." http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1113.pdf.
—. n.d. "RULE 1186. PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestoc k Operations." http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1186-1-less-polluting- sweepers.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
—. n.d. "RULE 403. Fugitive Dust." http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
—. n.d. "RULE 431.2. Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels." http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-431-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
Urbana Preservation & Planning. 2022. "Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum 1700-1740 E.
Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, California
City Council
41 –
149
12/20/2022
Community Plan Exemption Checklist
City of Santa Ana Gary Avenue Business Park Project
105
This page intentionally left blank.
City Council
41 –
150
12/20/2022
July 21, 2022
Attn: Konnie Dobreva
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street | Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum | 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, California.
Introduction and Purpose
The subject property at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue is composed of three detached office buildings, 1700, 1720, and 1740. The property was constructed in 1973 and is 49 years old. It is not located within a historic district and is not identified as a historic property in the City of Santa Ana Property Information Search Database. The property has not been previously surveyed for eligibility under the City of Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (Local Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
A new project is proposed for the property and includes demolition of the three existing office buildings and construction of a new approximately 91,500 square foot light industrial warehousing building that would accommodate two tenants. One side of the building would have 42,700 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space and the other would have 46,800 square feet of warehouse space and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. Each side of the building have 5 dock doors.
This Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum was prepared to conform to City of Santa Ana General Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. This HRA Memorandum was prepared by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC with contributions by Alexia Landa, BA, Historian and Wendy Tinsley Becker, RPA, AICP. Ms. Landa and Ms. Tinsley Becker exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Preparer qualifications are attached.
The purpose of the HRA Memorandum is to inform the City of the potential for the property’s eligibility under the criteria of the CRHR and the Local Register, contained within Municipal Code Section 30.2, and to assess impacts to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines resultant from a proposed project.
Definition of Study Area / Area of Potential Impact
The study area encompasses the proposed project boundary which conforms to the parcel boundary. 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue is identified as Orange County Assessor Parcel No. 430-171-07. The study area was intensively surveyed to inform historical resource identification and project impacts analysis.
A study area map is included as Figure 1 on the following page. Results are summarized in the following pages.
City Council
41 –
151
12/20/2022
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue, Santa Ana Attn: Konnie Dobreva, EPD Solutions, Inc.