Chick-Fil-A CUP 3044-17 202 S Main St.AGENDA ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 2020
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
CHAIR GLASGOW AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Anna Pehoushek, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director�
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner·�
1. SUBJECT
2. SUMMARY
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
(MND)
4. AUTHORIZATION GUIDELINES
qu
ete o ,
y t f f
PC ITEM 1 01/20/2020
5. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant:
Property Owner
Property Location
Existing General Plan
Land Use Element
Existing Zoning
Old Towne
Specific Plan/PC
Site Size
Circulation
Existing Conditions
Surrounding Land Uses
and Zoning
E:
i U 4 i
i U M
i ffi
i 4
Previous o ,i
Applications/Entitlements il
U P
a
PC ITEM 2 01/20/2020
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Architecture
axy 22 .u
a "Fa ""R"""
a w n e
ry
.
Landscape
e x Q
H
w
,y
w ,p yrt ,
w,T
y 6
D S F
Required Proposed Code Section
Building Height 32 Feet Maximum 22 Feet 17.18.120
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 FAR Maximum .11 FAR General Plan
Landscaping (non- 8, 100 Square Feet 8, 164 Square Feet Landscape
Loading area (non- 10'X40' 1 O'X40' Minimum 17.34.150
PC ITEM 3 01/20/2020
Parking (non-residential)
Setback, Front
Setback, Rear O
Setback, Side Street
Setback, Side O
7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
General Plan
y',g e
Se -k
rt s,Cy -g pj
s ,
z rm G Bu -2
av a w a u y
.J H,'H O Cy,,j
u i
Zoning
T MU zo x
u iy g ,
urt -Wk
o vmn ky i,
St t r i y rf s , dp
f t zi y
PC ITEM 4 01/20/2020
q
f z X FR
n g e
i
T p ()kfil
le w t q y
g e y T q
g ce 1
.
Legal Non-Conforming Status
Ex v e FR.FR
f y
c .W X
g .FR I
ugi y g
c t y
W j x
g y d pxy
z x b 1 FR T k
p q
A e
(GC)FR 1
j w C
F , d y 4 5 7 q
0.95 w q 1 FR j w p
p C x FR pp d j
y c j
'w G P . T j y
.
Gv ff
u y c k
PC ITEM 5 01/20/2020
Site Planning
lk
g j
d lg I
lk /
G ',
rtu wd "k "
Wd g k tt
T p a k tt
p pg v a
u
m fe xt
s W
q y
c w l
py 36 x
z
I 4:j W
T d u p 24
wid.T C y'q 25 ,
q
a j '.
S 17.10 050 0(2) Z u
PC ITEM 6 01/20/2020
ff D S xt -
l 2
n a e
F -C
Q (tt )
a q Chick-fil-A ff q
-l
.S q y s (),
m -r
m r n
8. PUBLIC NOTICE
O Jary 9,0 C b N 45
/3 -l
qn O R r J 9
2020.T
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration: M N a N 85 -7 (S
C N . 0 90 9099) a
m j,C El
Qy (EQ ) CEQ G S 5 70
L CEQ G (6)MN
m n
ff CEQ G q b
f a
a b , n ,
y b N s
PC ITEM 7 01/20/2020
P,
F MD (r r
s rt a r
me t pj
g
S n r wr r r
/j tt
p prj P r
j r F s
vy yz j r
/j y
g ps r
10. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff Review Committee:
C
q j C
ff r D R k
Dm 4 9 r a rq j
.
Design Review Committee:
Dg R 8
m r
cmm g r a
D a r
r R 8,9
r s rt
s
11. ATTACHMENTS
L P
V
3 e L U P G P
4 Q P
PC ITEM 8 01/20/2020
E -d
4G v n u,In.
O Bx 757
A -57
@4 o
n.lcdd\plng\appl1callons\general plan arnendmen\\gpa 2018--0002 chick f1I a\pc\pc report final docx
PC ITEM 9 01/20/2020
List of Potential Conditions of Approval
.51,
qu pa w m S P e
2 Ex a thw p n,j c n.A
a s b ,cs o
an u suc,h e th mmun D
D f apval.I th Cmmun Dme D m h
rp hg s wi e e p p
,e th h
v an
u .
h
P
.u Pm
c p
h th Sb
h a e c.
h ,j th
shal th
h p
s p
a a p h h c .
c
.
9. th b
h p b b
m
m c
mm
2 u m c c h b b
d Cun D S ul th
m fi c d ,fi b w
b w C tt
Attachment 1:
List of Potential Conditions of Approval
Chik-fil-A, 202 S. Main St
Planning Commission 01/20/20
un o qui
al a u u
6.ug m ,q
pc fia d Cy Srvs
17.T pj Py j wi ar i a Fal
W Qual Mg (QM)tm BM g ur
s rm fi g unf
M T MP
p f g
u g i u
cp wi q M 1 S y
g
..un
ar
p q
g ur
p T
c P
ur
ar
g
rm fi g
S
C da S Sfi
su C y
wi ur firm
g T
i q MC
e 171030 ar t 'ri ar ;
ug i ara 0 5
f
un S ,Trt S Iv Pam
F a P Park Aq So tr S ,
qe
Mitigation Measures
27 A j M Mur Pj n atur p
me as Mg Mni Rt Pgam
M Nge N.1858-18.
Vicinity Map
GPA No. 2018-0002
Chick-fil-A
OTW.158
OTMU
C-1
Portola
Middle
School
C-2
MAPlEAVf.
CtW'MANAVE
R-1-6
C-2
N
W�E w s
CITY OF ORANGE
Attachment 2: Vicinity Map
Chik-fil-A, 202 S. Main St
Planning Commission 01/20/20
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE
South Main Street Corridor
t
L D ·
d H f O Cu
(HO)J Hp
L V ,
cm ff s
L V
p y
p
ff
ig lfmi y b Th
u R22 Tw y ,d y
ff,,ca
f '
Pj k j
h y HO d J H
ff
p m
.I y,
f v
, y p
c
Attachment 3: ======:•=---'""'-""' .,.. s Main Street Corridor Land Use Policy, 2010
ORANGE GENERAL PLAN General Plan
LU-37 Chik-fil-A, 202 S. Main St
Planning Commission 01/20/20
LAND USE
Man Pac g Sn An b mi.
Th n s b f i m
bj,w yw L U E mmy
V :
•Enc m ,,ff s.
•m m z x
.
·-. -! -
ORANGE GENERAL PLAN
LU-38
LAND USE
· West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange
D,
li
r, y
-57 )
y
C�,I (),y
�cessibility,k ,
ORANGE GENERAL PLAN
LU-39
MEMORANDUM
Ll�SCOTT
LAW &
GREENS PAN
To: Date engfnter)
From:
Subject:
LLG Ref:
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
2 Executive Circle
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
949.825.6175 T
949.815.61)3 F
www.llgengineers.com
Pasadena
Irvine
San Diego
Woodland Hills
&
n g 1 vi fo e j w b
o (I)n s z ,uuy d l al d (P t
D I n ne I gz ,tturn n/grn w y
tr (Pt Driw N ).an y
q p t
s p vhru qu
&
y p
s s )w g
z p t t u g
t w
abs 10-3 rug 10 5
t t 20 vhl,
s Fur A,
v hr
tug Figur A,
t t hr )
e s
w g t d
n s
v
Figu A, i u u
more n Figur A,""j th
y s
three v hi th k w
Philip M. Lmscon, PE IIS2�·2Wll
Jack M. treensoan PE !Rell
Wilham A Law, PE !AeLI
Paul W. Wilkinson, PE
John P. Keanng, PE
David S. Shender, PE
John A. Boarman, PE
Clare M luck-Jeeqer, PE
Richard E. Barrena, PE
Attachment 4:
N:\3900\218)9)9. C�ick-fi!-A Main Street, Oranye\LcU�ii\39)9 - Cluck-iil-A �fain Slrcel Updated On-Sile Transpcnaticn Circul�hOO .!. Qu.Circulation and Queuing Management Plan
Chik-fil-A, 202 S. Main St
Planning Commission 01/20/20
o h t s g ia
C-fi-'ytm Or p u t P g
u pea ors o 1 :30 m 1 :3 pm an y dit im In
dd,s wi h q d fi
aody ,o s any qu y d
o u
s ds
t t
s y s d
3 y t
d st t
y t
t m
an r t
r t O us
s
Queuing Management Plan
A i z g m m q ,
h loy t ak ,paym ,
p W uffi
th i p -l-A s s an q g s e C
fi -S y m nr n di anh -qp y
mpo,q ro
dr g qu d 2 ()
d ffi th an qu i h l
I ul i -fi-u
p rt ary a in y O t l f
igni an o g /rod Chick-fil-A t
Fur t technology h ,
p rt u o
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
,eng fneers
UpdJlcd Tr�n>J)Ortal10n Cir;:ulalion & �.1114-19 occ
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
* * * * * • * * * *
an e s conac us a ()825-675 i
yu hae y qu o s
Attcm n
N:13900111839)9- Chicl,,.-lil-A Main S1rc•1. O..ing�\L�llcn\J9J9 · Chick-fl I-A Main Street Updated On-Sile Trenspomnicn Ci1�uln1iun & Qucuing 11.\Qnagemem Plan - Oruni;e, 11-1-1-19.,;!�
JDl'n6D 6LOZ:-tL-L( 1;:n:·1L dOl
w _,
-c u
(f)
-;:, -
(f) w
f- :::, + u �ON w
f- a � _,
I u (f) w w
cc f- _, w :::,
< z >= :::, w -c z w :::,
0 l;j OW :::, a
I zu a
"' :.: w cc "' u "w "' 0 -c Q. :::, _,
w "' u,
oI x cc u < f- w
(l'. Q. co -c >
:::, - <X) "' 0
0 II II II II (f)
*000
w - >
I :t z f-
B9 Ill
o- ::; x
I
_J w
""
! t ! t I
� I
8 8
� I
::�? I rr 8 * I ,,
-�
I
.LIX3 I
� - ®
< zw j�
� 0..,:;:
0
� z
J.:il:illl.LS NM'i :::i 0 ,__: -w
I
0 ..... w
j� - � :::i z
�
U-
� <(
.. -::; u <(
I
. · .': · i·I· ,,
_J
G:
i-t
I
"' u
I u
Ji •
0 " . " , . i ;,
i � . "r'
"' � z w
b z
0 p
AGENDA DATE:
To:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019
Anna
RECOMMENDED ACTION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Gal x U (NIX,2 u/,FA)
Zg gh x U U4)
Ex 8,79 F
y z ,8 F
Gr n Am .0;Z Cg No.17
1;U N ;M
.;anEmnN 81
r w
PUBLIC NOTICE
N u N nroiect.
Attachment 5: DRC Staff Report and
Minutes (09/18/19 and 12/18/19)
Chik-fil-A, 202 S. Main St
Planning Commission 01/20/20
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 2 of 10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Architecture
"Powerwall W"A
ur rue nr
Landscape
l h an
,hr tr
f p an )
r ;An g
M q A
e
M l M tr
nr
ai th un th j j
al "dmar "g a rth
'r ro i p
nh ai tr A l an
q
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 3 of 10
Access and Circulation
th N i U i ar
Parking/Drive Thru
T pc r 48 arg ,ar,an par
fo 12 bcl a t n y u
nu 1-dr-hru ,r 1 l
rt j s hr d wrp arun
and th u,t
a d
l ar
Environmental Review
a l c i r
an t
c s
an d g
r un n
l c g
c an
aff u th th 4 1 an
c 4 n th ar
jc
EXISTING SITE
c 8 c 1
c ar
l a
n t e f),-
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 4 of 10
EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Architectural Features.
igh qaly w v arur
2 Landscape.
.y iz p pjt '
v s p
L vl q dr,r
v tr px th
Lan pr un ki break
par f xp o p
3 Secondary Functional and Accessory Features.
cts,g ,,q
l b arm,whi ur p w
g( )
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I u 1 L Us P F amw k
A k y d i u j wi G P A Z
an g q d s part p m . th g y
i t u al rr . Ao , j m
wy n w fr rr vp
i d an p uny l v gr
v t d l fi d fi p x ,
m fi h . R v n s p tun y v
p ans ti rt
T G P p N gh x U (NMIX),
p it e z n N gh M x U (NMU N U z
o up x u v rr ng
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 5 of JO
om
ts the N zg o b m
.
W z dr ,b b
pean zni
q th U z A,e NIX um F
Ar R FAR)n th
bod xs trc.
oa fiA t Pl Z
qui ua l x
ar , jc t b o 010
u z
h c wi rm R P j
bj c m an wi w D A u D
ar o l D #3 n/L V ,
em ar m.u fi,,
fi as t c
G e c , af o
typ a c c o , wi
rg m a m xs t s af ing c fit
w
I 2: P nn g
Whi u n mbl y
f o n c m c , C A,
Ts a dr hr y
Sou h a e rr u , art ul
fundam al t nm ub a oc
rr.
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 6 of 10
e p x fi fi
fcl b rty
.Th
Is 4:L
Th a l,atur
The xe g
tr 24 S L s tr
A,24 Hy O tw 24 Srr
tr ar u i fin o x
Q P rn uny n -24 W
Ru A . 36-P V
a "" make
s S th S ty hr
rou q DR r
"s tu "rp tr
nh th ai u D C'
h nn w
5:S g g
T al m tt y d
w H ,
th "tu "Curr "C O ", u
DR , p g
REQUIRED FINDINGS
T urt fi "F " , b f
k z make fi ak y "F ,"
nu , hru t fy g d (i.e., n , t ,
ume , ) un , w
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 7 of 10
OM 0.
3 Th pjc up muty a y ,
int gn w p pifi g
,qui fi (OM 7.07.G.3
d y
st ai Ald ,tr
rr.
d S Rd Proj A,
d d n #3 -
n/L V,ary .
s ,
dc .
4 F ifi ,pifi it f O fi
s,u(s)pai w t ,
,ut t w nc
xig (OC .7 G. 4)
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 8 of 10
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
CONDITIONS
g g
ruur,g nity p
I munity
w p
w am p s r
a y
w qui
ht h hal
u r mm
S d i,
y D
ns p parkig
f q B W Qty
P mid ty p
rco g Sud ,
i w
5. o O n d h
o barriers W k k
h r i Dp b
W k
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 9 of JO
s g .
9 P o ug ,al ruur a
wih un (C 1552 B y
Sds),w fi ,r,,gh,
(O.No.7-79 Arhi dr O y
und "S N An
y
s
r
w s s u r
o o g
P
O
g g
fi
C
s rt O ,h g h r
h v B T g b
d e g x xtr uny a
app a s tha g q
f OM S 7 12 03 ar rt 'x ar ;
ag un x a
05 -
4 T a ic n fy,h ar ,f C ,,
d fr l ty ai ai s C y
g f s a mi ,x y C ty'c
g g T t y m,r
d o l
15 s y ral ,d ,al Cy
g a os V an nn i
rm
Design Review Committee Staff Report
September 18, 2019
Page 10 of 10
1 7. ,th p al
applicab v s,g :w nn O
uy San t Cnn ,Ti S I Pgam,
Fi Facit,Po F,A,Sn s,an S s,s
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vy M
2.M N ar N.1858-18
3. s P
:R L PE -P
4G vpe ig,I.
PO x 270571
San ,A 92198-2571
bar@4g
n:\cdd\plng\applications\general plan amendment\gpa 2018-0002 chick fil a\drc\drc report with mnd.doc
yr
•DR Acti:Pnn
Rober Garc,Se P pv rv j t s t
Jenr Dw,bt Lmd,n pns pj,
q.
Ch Mcm pd arn.
T w
t t d s n
r pty
p .
C s t d.
h m
m d r n
ps .
s sp
t r p s s
n .
m
w r s
n r d
c .
Pr .
M d j s p p
e e ar P
r h t s bd tt ap.
pc an t d r p s m '
s mms.
SECND:
AYE:
NE:
ABSET:
ABSTIN:
ADJOURNMENT:
I
C,Sh,Dtt,I x
N
N
MOTION CARRIED.
hair nn jrn th 11 :0
The x gar s f Wdny,2,201.
AGENDA DATE:
To:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM
DECEMBER 18,2019
RECOMMENDED ACTION
(DR)vw pojct
Mtg ga (MN)mm
t ann Cn ()fi n th
l ta prt an tht
R p pprt th g
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Alt/Own:Chick-fil-A
prty L:M tr
G P a : M U (N IX-4, /, 5 F R)
Z :gh M U (NMU-)
E t g : ,5 F g
rty z:1 3 2 F
: G al . -; Z N 87-
; U rm N . 30 -7; Mi w
9 -7; E ma -.
P :p , 9
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 2 of 11
PUBLIC NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ive-thru c a g,g,
ee z 63 q sq
fr se o th a c ,d th
Am a
an s,/,,
n f dr a c ds a
z v g s
ac rp -ur .
Architecture
s Chick-fil-A ru w
e al um
2 s
in k z ra ur "Powerwall Wh "
l c "F G " "harc ",
w z e a u um tt
c v f drive-thru,
tru nr c w t
um t
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 3 of 11
Landscape
Access and Circulation
-thru e
ar p-ur tr.D an cs fr
A S
Parking/Drive Thru
T ul 49 ,r ki ,
ar uran Galy,ki pe l
uth ct in t r h drive-thru an wr
ar.V t
Str st
fr
t .h
fr p
t
fr
Environmental Review
t t .Q G e
ur b s an
fi u hr ,,
g s um m ur
Q ,B R ,C R ,ar al ,N ,
r rt n/T fi ,T l ur R C
A.I rp t t j
gn fi an
S ff q th RC p fial (P 4 -1 ),Culur
R ur o (P 4.5-)ft MN F MN,cs
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 4 of 11
EXISTING SITE
EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
Pj ,Ju 88 am Mar 2
EVALUATION CRITERIA
O Mnial C (OMC)..b g RC
w g j T g:
j rn ,g ,whi th
wi t:
.Architectural Features.
aur fl imar gn
Ce g fyg b t
a arurl
2. Landscape.
.ty z , f h rt '
gn n
.La c h b tr b q g , al
s u t x
.L l ar b
p larg xp n
3. Secondary Functional and Accessory Features.
, g g , n q
a c nn , ar t ab
bg ()
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A DRC'S b 18, 2019 mg , C mm tt
d i (3):
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 5 of 11
g th tra o th M rr
prtuite fr r wk py tm t
ty rsgnt jc an g f G mmc (CG)
NMIX,wh rg zg fr G B ()NMU T s
w y s
t t g
r y M rr
t t t c
tg e t g M
trt e h s
r t z f
g e th G
g g r t c T y
t h t
t r s
urr ng mm c x
i ay ,th NIX F R FAR)p g
t nty vt x tr T
p f C mn G P
r qur m r t rt ul gg
sig r .hf c k 20 0
z ng f
e r j t a withi u R v p P j
subjt t m with t Sw Dg ar g D g
tn ar ,t r j c T Dc #3 M n/V as
urba o T n ss
ffi a m
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 6 of 11
t
p an tr i k e
p f l wul x bg h
pj ar fi tr d ,p
j o alk,pan/e fl
m t th ,q pk
th u
T pan r f
th j e a q h w Dg ar ,e
e x zni h d
I 3:ur
A P Dp , pp ar
poj , n ark b z pp x o a
fih x T wi g e
u we D g ta ar in/h ti D x
f u c tr ng e p imp
ar g g
G v th ui 'rn thr ur u g ar art
w w wn "B u " ar tr e e rn
, wh h b ty fr th W wng
k ze fih,T pp hr p
w k fi
e fi fr DRC fi
, w k pp hru y th
m u u
I 4:p
I RC ebk,pp u
o g y p e rt e Ine , t pp p
p an ar e 'p
7
41 tr a
qu.e p wu al 7 y .
i by 18 n ,nm z W th
rt q cun,nm an t
fman w r in
y e athe t j c 'S
Land C k g an l v
th
t
ee an c
g
REQUIRED FINDINGS
u,
r
t nmal
an t u
th y
t
r al
c u
pe
an rv :
M 17.10.070.G.I).
j c O T H ;,
p
2 I y Nal i Ho Dii,h wk pli i Sy f
t Ii'guli (OM 7.10.07.G.2).
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 8 of 11
g (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).
je i i wi R Pj Ar,
w as sg ar pj D #3 S
Min/L V,w my tur
ry y,c
itr f
4.Fo infill rden vp,pifi n Cty f Og I Ri Dg
Guiine,th ew t()i mpbl w h s,mi,
oien,n f e g vpm wl ev
exiig igb (OMC 17.10.07.G.4).
T mmr al f
lb 'In R D Gd;,
py
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Ci ff m w vu u 7 2019
mm p q j r y t
rw the r tt D 4, 2019 d p l
c q j
CONDITIONS
S aff i mm DRC m j an
e v m m P j , d l
o ii a m e y Cmm tt rt q fi ur
rv mmy
1. T s l rm wi
an x D 18, 2019 y fi q
by ,mm n y gn R
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 9 of 11
ue o tru a my b b Cmunity Dopn
Dier fr prval I Cuy De D m
ped chan s ppl
t,d tha h b h am
ppvd Cmmuniy D D my p g an
bc
m b
d v uy D
b sb b
by D mm
a b e p
ru e mn u C ty
r be b mmy p
r e m n b c b
h e n b b
y a p b
b b ub s D
d cnn l D b
y b c
r
pm D n um s b
b
7 Prr g erm ane Ciy q d p
h d th dc h mm
D
8 T e r j nd i j p ub t F
Wr Q y m (Q )i BM g
su m rmb fitr un
an wi rv b f i T e W
a s b permits.
.r d ru al
l w e um un (5 y
an ar s),w a s fi w ,w
(Ord N 7 7 )Ar awi a icu n f O pp
un er "S Ne "An"P Ls /8"w
avaib u
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page JO of II
j
t my wh th y 'W E Ln Gui d S
IX f Cy o Og L S Sco
13.an ,cn n
n w C Bu gh n
erm te m x x uary T
ppan al o q
y x
p e
mu
pan g y
m fm y o n y
x
n h y y
o y
p y n y
.p rk,q
a ,mun m artm Bui n .F h
q y r
17.ui artm ,c a
p em :c nn
C u S i D tr nn F ,T rt S I v Program,
F F y,P Fy k A q ,So D tr S tr
q
ATTACHMENTS
1 V M
.D R tt S R rt D S 18,219
3 D R w mm tt F Mi S p 18 219
Appan R m'
5 D ft Mg N D N 1858-18
6 M N i N 1858-18
7.pe P L De 18 219
Design Review Committee Staff Report
December 18, 2019
Page 11 of 11
cc: Robert Lombardi PE - President
4G Development and Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 270571
San Diego, CA 92198-2571
rlornbardi@4gdev.com
N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\General Plan Amendment\GPA 2018-0002 Chick fil A\DRC\DRC Report with }JN]).doc
1 3.
2
3
4
5 3.1
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items:
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4909-17-CHICK-FIL-A
,pk th p q
n s th ang
3
a Mcl.rermott th b
6 mm
7 qy s e
•D n th
9 A tr n
•K s t Q
p s ar w
2 •p tr gn
•fl s wn
•H h tr
5 •p e n u
6 •py n
7 • s
e w l e h
9 a d p tr p
40 e lan , n
4 p
• fi
yp p
al
45 Move x tr , ep Myrt w p
46 ar n
New Agenda Items:
MOTION CARRIED
Kg
2 dd oe K tr W
3.Re Sry tre g u
arg
.Ro kig j u th trrm
th ;e rt gn
go
5.g os ta an u
th oe Lw B
6.fl x .
.g c h m u
.R ar
9./al u su
3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4924-17 - ARCHITECTS ORANGE STAIRS AND PATIO
•truu
ui j x ai u
a w y w 6,
• .O -4 G , az Ho tr
• Co ara , (1 ) 744-72 3, mm @
R
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4
2
43
44
45
46
47
e 3 7
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A
DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Orange
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
Contact: Robert Garcia
714.744.7231
PREPARED BY:
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Ms. Kristen Bogue
949.472.3505
August 2019
JN 166516
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange i August 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18............................................................................. i
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ...............................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Incorporation by Reference ...............................................................................1-2
2.0 Project Description .....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting .............................................................................2-1
2.2 Proposed Project ..............................................................................................2-5
2.3 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................2-8
3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Background .......................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................3-2
3.3 Lead Agency Determination ..............................................................................3-2
4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .................................................................. 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................. 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Public Services ............................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Recreation ................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 4.17-1
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................. 4.19-1
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange ii August 2019
5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................5-1
6.0 References ..................................................................................................................6-1
7.0 Report Preparation Personnel ...................................................................................7-1
8.0 Appendices
8.1 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data
8.2 Cultural Resources
8.3 Geotechnical Investigation
8.4 Hazardous Materials Documentation
8.5 Hydrology and Water Quality Reports
8.6 Noise Data
8.7 Traffic Impact Analysis and Circulation Plan
8.8 OCTA Correspondance
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange iii August 2019
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity..........................................................................................2-3
Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity .................................................................................................2-4
Exhibit 2-3 Site Plan .....................................................................................................2-6
Exhibit 2-4 Landscape Concept Plan ............................................................................2-9
Exhibit 2-5a Building Elevations .................................................................................... 2-10
Exhibit 2-5b Building Elevations .................................................................................... 2-11
Exhibit 4.14-1 Fire Access ............................................................................................ 4.14-2
Exhibit 4.16-1 Study Area ............................................................................................. 4.16-3
Exhibit 4.16-2 Cumulative Project Map ....................................................................... 4.16-12
Exhibit 4.16-3 Circulation Plan .................................................................................... 4.16-19
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange iv August 2019
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................2-2
Table 4.3-1 Construction Related Emissions.................................................................. 4.3-4
Table 4.3-2 Long-Term Operational Emissions .............................................................. 4.3-6
Table 4.3-3 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ..................................... 4.3-10
Table 4.3-4 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions ...................................... 4.3-10
Table 4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 4.7-11
Table 4.7-2 Consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan ................................................. 4.7-14
Table 4.7-3 Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS ............................................... 4.7-16
Table 4.10-1 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis ................................................ 4.10-2
Table 4.10-2 Fair Share Housing Needs Allocation (2014-2021) ................................. 4.10-24
Table 4.10-3 City of Orange Zoning Code Consistency Analysis ................................. 4.10-26
Table 4.10-4 Southwest Project Area Design Standards Consistency Analysis ........... 4.10-29
Table 4.12-1 City of Orange Exterior Noise Standards ................................................... 4.12-4
Table 4.12-2 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ..................................................................... 4.12-4
Table 4.12-3 Noise Measurements ................................................................................ 4.12-5
Table 4.12-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ................ 4.12-7
Table 4.12-5 Future Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................................... 4.12-8
Table 4.12-6 Cumulative Noise Scenario ..................................................................... 4.12-10
Table 4.12-7 Typical Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots .................... 4.12-12
Table 4.12-8 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................... 4.12-14
Table 4.16-1 Study Area Intersections ........................................................................... 4.16-2
Table 4.16-2 Study Area Roadway Segments ............................................................... 4.16-2
Table 4.16-3 LOS and V/C Ranges ................................................................................ 4.16-4
Table 4.16-4 HCM Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections .................... 4.16-5
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange v August 2019
Table 4.16-5 Roadway Link Capacities .......................................................................... 4.16-6
Table 4.16-6 Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions ............................................... 4.16-7
Table 4.16-7 Roadway Segment – Existing Conditions .................................................. 4.16-8
Table 4.16-8 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................. 4.16-9
Table 4.16-9 Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions ......................... 4.16-10
Table 4.16-10 Roadway Segment Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions .............. 4.16-10
Table 4.16-11 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................ 4.16-11
Table 4.16-12 Intersection Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions ......................................... 4.16-13
Table 4.16-13 Roadway Segment Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions .............................. 4.16-14
Table 4.16-14 Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations ...................... 4.16-16
Table 4.16-15 Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations
(Weekday) .............................................................................................. 4.16-17
Table 4.16-16 Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations
(Friday) ................................................................................................... 4.16-17
Table 4.16-17 Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations
(Saturday) ............................................................................................... 4.16-18
Table 4.16-18 Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ....................... 4.16-20
Table 4.18-1 Electricity Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016 .............................. 4.18-6
Table 4.18-2 Natural Gas Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016 .......................... 4.18-7
Table 4.18-3 Automotive Fuel Consumption in Orange County 2007-2018 .................... 4.18-7
Table 4.18-4 Energy Consumption ................................................................................. 4.18-8
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange vi August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange vii August 2019
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
TECHNICAL APPENDICES ON CD
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange viii August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange i August 2019
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Project Title: Reference Application Numbers:
Proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant General Plan Amendment No. 2018-0002,
Zone Change No. 1287-18, Conditional Use
Permit No. 3044-17, Design Review No. 4909-
17, Minor Site Plan No. 0904-17, and
Environmental Document No. 1858-18.
Lead Agency: Contact Person and Telephone No.:
City of Orange Robert Garcia, 714.744.7231
Project Proponent and Address: Contact Person and Telephone No.:
Chick-fil-A, Inc. Jennifer Daw, 404.305.4834
Project Location: The 0.95-acre site is located at the southern corner of the intersection of West Almond
Avenue and South Main Street, at 202 South Main Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 390-264-28.
Existing General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Classification:
The City of Orange General Plan Land Use Map designates
the project site as Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX).
The City of Orange Zoning Code zones the
project site as Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-
24).
EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting: Regionally, the site is located approximately 0.50-mile north of State Route 22 (SR-22), and
0.65-mile east of State Route 57 (SR-57).
Existing Site Conditions:
(Describe the project site)
The project site consists of one, single story 8,579 square foot commercial structure, approximately 70 surface
parking spaces and associated parking lot lighting and landscaping features. The site is accessed via a two-way
driveway on West Almond Avenue and a two-way driveway on South Main Street. A restricted access (roped-off),
one-way egress driveway is also located on West Almond Avenue.
Surrounding Land Uses:
(Describe the land uses and characteristics of the surrounding area)
Surrounding uses primarily consist of commercial and residential uses to the north, east, and west, and commercial
uses to the south. The site is separated from an established residential neighborhood to the west by a single
commercial property that is home to a pre-school. Refer to Section 2.1, Project Location and Setting.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(Describe the components of the project including proposed physical improvements,
construction, operations, phasing, and City approvals required to accommodate the project).
The project involves the demolition of the existing 8,579 square-foot structure and the construction of a one-story,
4,563 square-foot Chick-fil-A restaurant building with a two-lane drive-thru and associated surface parking,
landscaping, and utilities. Construction of all project components is anticipated to occur over a six-month period (in
one phase), commencing in May 2019 and being completed by December 2019. The project would be subject to
various City permits and approvals, including, but not limited to: General Plan Amendment GPA 2018-0002; Zone
Change ZC No. 1287-18; Environmental Review ENV No. 1858-18; Conditional Use Permit No. 3044-17; Design
Review No. 4909-17; Minor Site Plan Review No. 0904-17; and Tree Removal Permit.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange ii August 2019
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (Responsible or Trustee Agencies):
(Identify other public agencies whose approval is required for project implementation and
agencies with jurisdiction over affected natural resources)
The project would also be subject to various permits and approvals from other public agencies, including, but not
limited to, the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFSD) Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Scheduled Public Meetings or Hearings:
(Describe the date, time and location for all scheduled public meetings and hearings)
To be determined, separate noticing will be given for public hearings.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 1-1 August 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant (project) is located at 202 South Main Street in
the City of Orange (City), California. The City is situated in central Orange County, approximately
30 miles southeast of Downtown Los Angeles. The 0.95-acre site is located in at the southwest
corner of the intersection of West Almond Avenue and South Main Street. The project involves
the demolition of an existing 8,579 square-foot structure and the construction of a one-story, 4,563
square-foot Chick-fil-A restaurant building with a double drive-thru lane and associated surface
parking, landscaping, and utilities.
The City of Orange has determined that the project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the need for a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change, among other entitlements, to implement the project, and possible related
environmental impacts. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addresses the
direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Statute Sections 21000-21177) and pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines
(Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), the City of Orange, acting
in the capacity of Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, is required to
determine whether the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If the
Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to
include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on
the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant
effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative
Declaration) for that project. Such determination can be made, by the City of Orange, only if
“there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record” that such impacts may occur (Statute
Section 21080[c]).
This IS/MND, which is ultimately adopted by the City of Orange in accordance with CEQA, is
intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for
subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however,
a policy document, and its adoption neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of
those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.
1.2 PURPOSE
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in
an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
• A description of the project, including the location of the project.
• Identification of the environmental setting.
• Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there
is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either through a
narrative or a reference to other information source such as an attached map,
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 1-2 August 2019
photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declaration. A reference to another document
should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information
is found.
• A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any.
• An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans,
and other applicable land use controls.
• The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this IS/MND. The documents
are available for review at Orange City Hall, located at 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California, 92866.
• City of Orange General Plan (March 2010, with 2015 amendments). The purpose of the
City of Orange General Plan (General Plan), adopted March 9, 2010, is to anticipate and
plan for the physical development of the City, and any land outside its boundaries which
bears relation to its planning. The General Plan is organized into 11 elements: Land Use;
Circulation and Mobility; Growth Management; Natural Resources; Public Safety; Noise;
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation; Infrastructure; Urban Design; Economic
Development; and, Housing. Each General Plan element presents an overview of its
scope, summary of conditions and planning issues, goals, and policies.
• City of Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (March 2010). The
City of Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan PEIR),
dated March 2010, considered the environmental impacts for the General Plan. This
document was prepared as a Program EIR, which is intended to facilitate consideration of
broad policy directions, program-level alternatives, and mitigation measures consistent
with the level of detail available for the General Plan. The General Plan PEIR concluded
significant and unavoidable impacts regarding air quality, transportation/traffic, and
climate change.
• City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines (April 2006). The City of Orange Local CEQA
Guidelines (City CEQA Thresholds Guide) was prepared for the review of projects, and
preparations of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires the analysis
of discretionary projects to disclose their potential environmental effects. The City CEQA
Thresholds Guide is a tool that compiles information that is useful in the preparation of
environmental documents, and improves the level of consistency, predictability, and
objectivity of the City’s environmental documents. This document provides assistance in
identifying historical resources and employs a combination of State CEQA Guidelines and
local rules and regulations when determining impacts to historical resources.
• City of Orange Municipal Code, adopted in 1995 with amendments through January 2018.
The City of Orange Municipal Code (Municipal Code) consists of regulatory, penal, and
administrative ordinances of the City of Orange. It is the method the City uses to
implement control of land uses, in accordance with General Plan goals and policies.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 1-3 August 2019
• City of Orange Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area
(adopted June 1988 and amended September 2013, and March 2018). The Design
Standards for the Amendment of the Southwest Project Area (Southwest Design
Standards) purpose is to coordinate individual buildings or projects, which were often
constructed at different times, into a harmonious whole and to improve the aesthetic
environment. The Southwest Design Standards are intended to foster good design, to
encourage reinvestment in the Southwest Study area, and to improve the area’s economic
vitality. The Southwest Design Guidelines are applicable to new development within
Southwest Design Standards plan area, for which Design Review with the Planning
Department is a mandatory step in the approval process.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 1-4 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-1 August 2019
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant (project) is located at 202 South Main Street, in
the City of Orange (City), County of Orange, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.
Regionally, the site is located approximately 0.50-mile north of State Route 22 (SR-22), and 0.65-
mile east of State Route 57 (SR-57). Locally, the site is located at the southwestern corner of the
intersection of West Almond Avenue and South Main Street; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. The
project encompasses approximately 0.95-acre and is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number
(APN) 390-264-28.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site consists of one, 8,579-square foot commercial structure (approximately 15 feet
in height), approximately 70 surface parking spaces and associated parking lot lighting and
landscaping features. The site is accessed via a two-way driveway on West Almond Avenue and
a two-way driveway on South Main Street. A restricted access (roped-off), one-way egress
driveway is also located on West Almond Avenue. Surrounding uses primarily consist of
commercial and residential uses to the north, east, and west, and commercial uses to the south.
The site is separated from an established residential neighborhood to the west by a single
commercial property that is home to a pre-school. Table 2-1, Surrounding Land Uses, describes
the adjacent development.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan designates the project site as Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX), and the project
site is zoned Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-24). The density range for NMU-24 is 16 to 24
dwelling units/acre (DU/AC) for residential development and minimum 1.0 to maximum 1.5 floor
to area ratio (FAR) for commercial development. The NMU-24 zoning district is intended to
provide local- and neighborhood-supporting mixed-use activity centers and corridors. Along Main
Street, residential uses and uses supportive of a medical-related corridor are encouraged, and
walkability and pedestrian-oriented development are key considerations. The project site is also
subject to the Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area, dated June
1988 and amended most recently in March 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-2 August 2019
Table 2-1
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation1 Zoning2 Existing Land Use
North
General Commercial Max. 1.0 (GC)
Low Medium Residential 6 – 15 DU/AC (LMDR)
Low Density Residential 2 – 6 DU/AC (LDR)
Commercial (C3)
Residential Multiple Family (R-3)
Single-Family Residential 6,000
s.f. (R1-6)
Medical office uses;
single-family residential
East
Neighborhood Mixed Use (Max. 24 DU/Ac. 1.0-
1.5 FAR) (NMIX)
Low Medium Residential 6 – 15 DU/AC (LMDR)
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-
24)
Multiple Family (R-3)
Medical and professional
office uses
South Neighborhood Mixed Use (Max. 24 DU/AC, 1.0-
1.5 FAR) (NMIX) NMU-24 Medical office uses
West Neighborhood Mixed Use (Mac. 24 DU/AC, 1.0-
1.5 FAR) (NMIX) NMU-24
Institutional use (pre-
school); multi-family
residential uses
Notes:
1. The following correspond to the City’s General Plan Designations:
GC = General Commercial (the GC designation includes a wide range of retail and service commercial uses and professional offices;
regional shopping centers, mid-rise office projects, corridor shopping districts, and neighborhood corner stores are permitted uses)
LMDR = Low Medium Density Residential (the LMDR designation includes small lot or zero lot line single-family subdivisions, duplexes
and mobile home parks, as well as lower intensity apartment and condominium complexes)
LDR = Low Density Residential (the LDR designation is the conventional single-family residential development characterized by individual
single-family homes constructed in subdivisions, or by custom units built on individual lots)
NMIX = Neighborhood Mixed-Use (the NMIX is the local and neighborhood supporting mixed-use activity centers and corridors;
commercial retail is encouraged to be the primary use on the ground floor, and housing and office uses are also encouraged)
2. The following correspond to the City’s Zoning:
C3 = Commercial Zone (the C3 district provides an area where retail sales and services along with related assembling, processing, and
manufacturing can be carried out)
R1-6 = Residential Single-Family (the R1-6 district is for single-family residences with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet)
R-3 = Residential Multiple-Family (the R-3 zone is the multiple-family residential district which allows apartments, condominiums, and
townhomes, for the purpose of providing a minimum ground area coverage and maximum of open space within higher density
development)
NMU-24 = Neighborhood Mixed Use (the NMU-24 DU/AC zoning district is intended to provide local- and neighborhood-supporting
mixed-use activity centers and corridors; commercial retail uses are primary uses allowed on the ground floor, along with professional
office and residential uses integrated or as separate free-standing uses)
P
A
C
IFIC O
C
E
A
N USMC
Camp Pendleton
SAN BERNARDI N O
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
C O UNTY
SAN DI E G O
COUNTY
L OS ANG ELES
COUNT Y
ORANG E
COUNT Y
101
395
405
405
605
105
210
210
710
110
215
215
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
73
55
57
9191
90
60
71
91
60
38
18
18
22
1
2
14
18
18
138
138 173
74
74
1
1
133
261
241
330
241
Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
SanBernardino
LakeArrowhead
RunningSprings
Riverside
Fontana
OntarioPomona
RanchoCucamonga
Chino
Rialto
Corona
Norco
LakeElsinore
Hemet
Beaumont
Redlands
Temecula
Fallbrook
Oceanside
Murrieta
Palmdale
SanFernando
Pasadena
WestCovina
Whittier
Burbank GlendoraAzusa
LosAngeles
Torrance
LongBeach
NewportBeach
HuntingtonBeach
SanClemente
DanaPoint
LagunaBeach San JuanCapistrano
SantaAna
CostaMesa
GardenGrove
Fullerton
YorbaLinda
Irvine
MorenoValley
SunCity
PerrisOrange
PROJECT
SITE
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Exhibit 2-1
Regional Vicinity
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Exhibit 2-2
Site Vicinity
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Source: Goolge Earth Pro, 2018.
- Project Site
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-5 August 2019
2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing 8,579 square-foot structure and
surface parking lot, and constructing a new one story, 4,563 square-foot Chick-fil-A restaurant
with a two-lane drive-thru; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Site Plan. The project proposes a General Plan
Amendment to change the designation from Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX) to General
Commercial (CG), and a Zone Change from Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-24) to General
Business (C-2). In 2010, in order to encourage the transition of the south Main Street Corridor to
a medically-oriented district with opportunities for hospital-related workforce housing and to
support property reinvestment, the City re-designated the site and surrounding properties from
General Commercial (CG) to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX), with corresponding zoning. While
the zoning allows for drive-thru restaurants, it establishes special design requirements for fast
food restaurants in the NMU-24 zone. Additionally, the NMIX minimum FAR is intended to support
higher intensity development consistent with an urban mixed-use district. Because the
operational needs of Chick-fil-A are not in alignment with either the General Plan or Zoning
requirements for the site, particularly regarding development intensity and mixed-use related
design standards, the project proposes to re-designate the parcel back to the pre-2010 land use
and zoning designations for the site. In addition to the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change, the project would require a Conditional Use Permit.
The restaurant would have a traditional layout with an indoor dining area (80 seats),
serving/ordering area, kitchen area, service area, and an indoor play area for children. No outdoor
seating is proposed. The kitchen area includes a freezer, a cooler, staked convention ovens, and
preparation and finishing tables. The restaurant would also include office space for managerial
purposes, a multi-purpose room, and restrooms. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:
• Monday through Saturday: 6:00 a.m. to midnight; and
• Sunday: closed.
The project would provide 48 vehicle parking spaces (46 standard spaces [including one electric
vehicle space] and two handicap spaces), motorcycle parking, and parking storage for up to 12
bicycles at the front of the building for convenience and safety. The restaurant would include two
12-foot drive-thru lanes (that merge into one 12-foot lane) with directional signage located at the
northwestern portion of the project site. The proposed drive-thru lane would wrap around the
western and southern sides of the proposed building, and vehicles would exit the drive-thru lane
at the southeast corner of the building. The drive-thru would provide stacking for up to 17 vehicles
from the entry to the pick-up window with additional overflow storage for up to 20 cars on-site;
refer to Exhibit 4.16-3, Circulation Plan. During peak operating times, should queuing occur
beyond the available storage within the drive-thru lanes (17 vehicles), staff would be required to
go out to the drive-thru lanes to assist with ordering via Chick-fil-A’s iPad ordering system. Based
on data from Chick-fil-A’s other comparable stores, the iPad ordering system increases the drive-
thru speed of service by 30 percent than the typical speaker box. It is acknowledged that the iPad
ordering system is always used during peak hours of 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and any additional
time when needed. Chick-fil-A staff would also monitor the Almond Street access and direct
traffic, accordingly, to ensure that any vehicle queueing beyond the drive-thru lane will not block
vehicular circulation within the parking lot. Should the drive-thru queue extend onto Almond
Avenue, Chick-fil-A staff would direct the customer to utilize the Main Street access to enter the
drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management would also require staff to park in the stalls closest to
the drive-through entrance along Almond Avenue. This would allow for stacking, if needed.
Exhibit 2-3
Site Plan
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: CRHO Archicture Interior Planning, March 6, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-7 August 2019
The project would remove the existing driveways on West Almond Avenue and South Main Street
to construct one unsignalized, full-access driveway located along Almond Avenue (Project
Driveway No. 1) and one unsignalized, right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway located along
Main Street (Project Driveway No. 2). Project Driveway No. 1 would be located approximately 25
feet west of its existing location along Almond Avenue and Project Driveway No. 2 would be
located approximately 14 feet south of its existing location along Main Street.
The project would connect to existing sewer facilities in West Almond Avenue and existing water
(domestic, irrigation, and fire service lines) in South Main Street. Dry utilities (electric, cable,
telephone, and gas) would connect to existing lines in West Almond Avenue, and a transformer
is proposed on the western portion of the project site, as depicted on Exhibit 2-3. Stormwater
would flow toward three 24- by 24-inch grated inlets on-site that would then flow into an
underground infiltration system. Stormwater flows would be filtered of debris and trash on-site.
For overflows, a bypass system would be installed that would outlet to an existing 12-inch storm
drain at the southwest portion of the project site, which would then flow off-site, where flows would
discharge into the City’s storm drain system via an existing catch basin. Curb and gutter
improvements are proposed off-site along the eastern portion of the project site along South Main
Street. In consultation with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)1, the existing
bus stop (situated just north of the existing on-site driveway at South Main Street) would be
relocated approximately 100 feet to the south. Similar signage and bench would be installed
consistent with OCTA requirements.
Striped pedestrian pathways are proposed from Main Street and Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-
A restaurant building to provide pedestrian connectivity from the two adjacent roadways and
surrounding commercial and residential uses. The pedestrian pathways, bicycle parking storage,
and OCTA bus stop along Main Street would provide multimodal transportation opportunities to
and from the project site within the NMIX designated area.
Ornamental landscaping would be installed along the north and west portions of the restaurant
building, and along the drive-thru pathway; refer to Exhibit 2-4, Landscape Concept Plan.
Additional landscaping and trees would be planted along the project perimeter. Ten of the 18
existing perimeter trees (queen palms and fan palms) would remain on-site, eight existing palms
would be removed. An additional palm tree along South Main Street would be removed as
requested by OCTA to provide clear line of sight for bus operators to clearly see passengers
waiting at the proposed relocated bus stop. The existing concrete masonry wall would remain in
place along the southern and western boundaries of the project site. The total landscape area
would be 8,363 square feet. The project would also include a landmark feature as a large planter
at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote community identity
and provide a streetscape enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
The project would be designed with various architectural building elements at a maximum height
of approximately 22 feet, including a brick veneer, dark bronze parapets, awnings and other metal
storefront features, and “Powerwall White” stucco with a sand medium finish, along with
restaurant identification signage; refer to Exhibit 2-5a and Exhibit 2-5b, Building Elevations.
1 Written Correspondence: Kyle Poff, Stops and Zones Analyst, Orange County Transportation Authority, dated May 10, 2019; refer to
Appendix 8.8, OCTA Correspondence.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-8 August 2019
PROJECT PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION
Construction of all project components is anticipated to occur over a six-month period (in one
phase), commencing in May 2020 and being completed by December 2020.
2.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The City of Orange is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has discretionary authority over the
proposed project. The project would be subject to various City permits and approvals, including,
but not limited to:
• General Plan Amendment GPA 2018-0002;
• Zone Change ZC No. 1287-18;
• Environmental Review ENV No. 1858-18;
• Conditional Use Permit No. 3044-17;
• Design Review No. 4909-17;
• Minor Site Plan Review No. 0904-17; and
• Tree Removal Permit.
The project would also require administrative approvals from the City for issuance of grading,
building, and occupancy permits as well as connection permits from utility providers. Additionally,
the project would require OCTA approval to relocate the existing bus stop along South Main Street
approximately 100 feet to the south.
Exhibit 2-4
Landscape Concept Plan
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: CRHO Archicture Interior Planning, 2018.
Exhibit 2-5a
Building Elevations
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: CRHO Archicture Interior Planning, March 13, 2018.
Exhibit 2-5b
Building Elevations
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: CRHO Archicture Interior Planning, March 13, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 2-12 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 3-1 August 2019
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mr. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
714.744.7231
4. Project Location:
The 0.95-acre site is located at the southern corner of the intersection of West Almond
Avenue and South Main Street, at 202 South Main Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number
(APN) 390-264-28.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Ms. Jennifer M. Daw
Design & Construction, Chick-fil-A, Inc.
15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350
Irvine, California 92618
6. General Plan Designation:
The City of Orange General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX).
7. Zoning:
The City of Orange Zoning Code zones the project site as Neighborhood Mixed Use
(NMU-24).
8. Description of the Project:
The project involves the demolition of an existing 8,579 square-foot structure and the
construction of a one-story, 4,563 square-foot Chick-fil-A restaurant building with two lane
drive-thru and associated surface parking, landscaping, and utilities. Refer to Section 2.2,
Proposed Project.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Refer to Section 2.1,
Project Location and Setting.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval
or participation agreement):
The project would be subject to various City permits and approvals, including, but not
limited to: General Plan Amendment No. 2018-0002; Zone Change No. 1287-18;
Conditional Use Permit No. 3044-17; Design Review No. 4909-17; Minor Site Plan Review
No. 0904-17; Environmental Document No. 1858-18; and Tree Removal Permit.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.1-1 August 2019
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. According to the General Plan PEIR, scenic vistas are primarily located in the eastern
portion of the City where topography and open space allow for far-reaching views. The project
site is located within the western portion of the City, where topography is relatively flat and very
little open space exists. The project site is not located a viewscape corridor as identified by
General Plan PEIR Figure 5.1-1, Viewscape Corridor. Thus, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in an impact to a scenic vista and no impacts would occur in his regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. Based on the California Department of Transportation’s California Scenic Highway
Mapping System, there are no designated or eligible State scenic highways located near the
project site or within the City’s limits.1 The closest officially designated or eligible State scenic
highway is State Route 91, which is located over 4.5 miles to the northeast of the project site.
Thus, no impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Orange County,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/, accessed May 9, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.1-2 August 2019
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with a commercial
structure (a former restaurant), surface parking, and associated parking lot lighting and
landscaping features. Surrounding uses primarily consist of office uses and single-family
residential to the north, neighborhood commercial uses to the east, medical office uses to the
south, and institutional uses (pre-school) and multi-family residential uses to the west.
In 2010, in order to encourage the transition of the south Main Street Corridor to a medically-
oriented district with opportunities for hospital-related workforce housing and to support property
reinvestment, the City re-designated the project site and surrounding properties from General
Commercial (CG) to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX), with corresponding zoning from General
Business (C-2) to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-24). While the zoning allows for drive-thru
restaurants, it establishes special design requirements for fast food restaurants in the NMU-24
zone. Because the operational needs of Chick-fil-A are not in alignment with either the General
Plan or Zoning requirements for the site, particularly regarding development intensity and mixed-
use related design standards, the project proposes to re-designate the parcel back to the pre-
2010 land use and zoning designations for the site. A discussion of the project’s short-term
construction and long-term operational impacts on visual character/quality is included below.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities would be completed in a single phase over approximately six months.
During this time, demolished building materials, graded surfaces, debris, construction equipment,
and truck traffic would be visible from residents, commercial users, motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. The project’s short-term construction impacts on visual character/quality would be
temporary in nature and would cease upon construction completion. Therefore, it is concluded
that short-term project construction would not substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONS
Although the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the project would
be consistent with the developed nature of the area, and would not degrade the existing visual
character/quality of the project site or the surrounding vicinity. The proposed Chick-fil-A drive-
thru restaurant facility would be designed with various architectural building elements at a
maximum height of approximately 22 feet, including a brick veneer, dark bronze parapets,
awnings, and other metal storefront features, along with restaurant identification signage; refer to
Exhibit 2-5a and Exhibit 2-5b, Building Elevations. Ten of the 18 existing perimeter trees (queen
palms and fan palms) would remain on-site, new ornamental trees would be planted, and the
existing concrete masonry wall would remain in place along the southern and western boundaries
of the project site. Ornamental landscaping would be installed along the north and west portions
of the restaurant building, and along the drive-thru pathway and project perimeter; refer to Exhibit
2-4, Landscape Concept Plan. The project would also include a landmark feature as a large
planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote community
identity and provide a streetscape enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue
intersection.
Since the project, as proposed, would change the site’s existing zoning from NMU-24 to C-2, the
project’s maximum building height, minimum setbacks, signage, landscaping, and other
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.1-3 August 2019
development characteristics would be required to comply with the development regulations
detailed in Municipal Code Chapter 17.18, Commercial Districts, for C-2 zone. The project would
be consistent with the City of Orange zoning regulations for the C-2 zone; refer to Table 4.10-1,
City of Orange Zoning Code Consistency Analysis. Similarly, the project would be required to
comply with the maximum density allowed by the proposed GC General Plan land use
designation. The project would result in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.11 FAR, which is consistent
with the maximum 1.0 FAR allowed by the GC designation; refer to Table 4.10-1.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.18.240, Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, the
project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and is subject to
compliance with the City of Orange Redevelopment Agency’s Design Standards for the
Amendment to the Southwest Project Area (Southwest Design Standards), adopted June 1988
and recently amended in 2018. According to the Southwest Design Standards, the project site is
located in the South Main/La Veta Thematic District, which has an urban contemporary theme.2
The Southwest Design Standards include general design standards applicable to all development
within the Southwest Project Area and specific standards for each thematic district. Table 4.10-
2, Southwest Project Area Design Standards Consistency Analysis, analyzes the proposed
project features to determine consistency with applicable Southwest Design Standards; refer to
Section 4.10, Land Use and Relevant Planning. As concluded Table 4.10-2, the proposed project
would be consistent with the Southwest Design Standards and would be verified through the City’s
site plan and design review process. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.10.070, Design Review, the project’s design, including its
architectural features, landscape, signage, and secondary functional and accessory features,
would be reviewed for approval through the City’s Design Review process. This regulatory
procedure would verify the conclusions of Table 4.10-2 to ensure the design, colors, and finish
materials of the proposed project are consistent with the City’s design guidelines and are
compatible with development in the surrounding vicinity. Following conformance with the
Municipal Code and the City’s Design Review process, project implementation would not degrade
the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, including the project’s
consistency with the South Main/La Veta Thematic District, and impacts in this regard would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. A potentially significant impact would occur if a new source of
substantial light or glare causes an adverse effect on day or nighttime views. Light impacts are
typically associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. Glare
may be a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly
polished surfaces, such as window glass and reflective cladding materials, and may interfere with
the safe operation of a motor vehicle on adjacent streets. Daytime glare generation is common
in urban areas and is typically associated with mid- to high-rise buildings with exterior façades
largely or entirely comprising highly reflective glass or mirror-like materials. Nighttime glare is
2 City of Orange Redevelopment Agency, Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area,
June 1988, amended September 10, 2013 and March 13, 2018, https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/
View/6694/Southwest-Design-Standards---Amended-March-13-2018-1-of-65-PDF, accessed June 20, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.1-4 August 2019
primarily associated with bright point source lighting that contrasts with existing low ambient light
conditions.
The proposed project is located within a developed area of the City. Existing lighting sources at
the project site include nighttime security lighting from the on-site surface parking area. Additional
sources of existing lighting include those emitted from surrounding land uses, street lights, and
vehicle headlights. Daytime glare from the new building would be similar to that currently
experienced on-site and in the surrounding area. New sources of lighting would include light from
the proposed building’s interior pass through windows and light from the building exterior such as
lighting fixtures and illuminated signage. Existing parking lot lighting would be replaced with new
fixtures. Project implementation would also introduce new employees and patrons within the
project site which would result in additional vehicles and associated vehicular lighting sources
(i.e., headlights).
The types of land uses that are typically sensitive to excess light and glare include residential
uses, hospitals, senior housing, and other types of uses where excessive light may disrupt sleep.
The closest light sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses located
approximately 50 feet to the north and 108 feet to the west. A preschool facility is situated
approximately 18 feet to the west of the project site. However, this facility does not operate during
nighttime hours.
In conformance with Municipal Code Section 17.12.030, Lighting, all project lighting would be
directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding
premises. Municipal Code Section 17.20.030(b) includes lighting requirements to minimize glare
and illumination (such as shielding, screening, or directional techniques). The project would also
be subject to conformance with the building materials requirements required under the Southwest
Design Standards, including avoidance of reflective/tinted glass or corrugated metal/plastic
shingles; refer to Table 4.10-2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.10.070, Design Review,
the project’s design, including its lighting features, would be reviewed for approval through the
City’s Design Review process. With compliance with these existing regulations, project
implementation would not create a new source of substantial light and glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.2-1 August 2019
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 Department 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 by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping 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 122220(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?
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 forest land to non-forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance.1 The project site is zoned Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-24). Project
implementation would replace an existing restaurant facility with a new restaurant and drive-thru
facility. Thus, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland
Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed May 9, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.2-2 August 2019
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is zoned NMU-24 and is not covered under an existing Williamson
Act contract.2 Thus, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site is zoned NMU-24 and is not occupied by or used for forest land or
timberland purposes. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest
land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d). No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2 California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Preserves 2004 – Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County,
California, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf, accessed May 9, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-1 August 2019
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan
or Congestion Management Plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin
(Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). On
March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD Governing Board approved the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
(2016 AQMP), which outlines its strategies for meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3). According to the SCAQMD’s 2016
AQMP, two main criteria must be addressed.
CRITERION 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for
a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations
and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant
concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant
emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating
project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(d), below, localized concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be
less than significant during project operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because
reactive organic gases (ROGs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or
localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified
as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-2 August 2019
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would produce emissions that would
be below the SCAQMD operational thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not
have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions
reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized
concentrations during project operations. As such, the proposed project would not delay the
timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP emissions reductions.
CRITERION 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern
California Association of Government’s (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize
that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at
the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions
regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for
determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the
assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. Determining
whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the
evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of
each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth
projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
In the case of the 2016 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air
pollutant emissions: City of Orange General Plan (General Plan), SCAG’s Growth
Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG’s 2016-2040
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS
also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The
population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional
Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, the
SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP.
The project site is designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX) by the General Plan. The
NMIX minimum floor area ration (FAR) is intended to support higher intensity development
consistent with an urban mixed-use district. The project proposes to re-designate the project
site to General Commercial (CG) and re-zone the project site from Neighborhood Mixed Use
(NMU-24) to General Business (C-2), which has a maximum floor area of 1.0, which is lower
than the NMIX FAR minimum 1.0 and maximum 1.5. Thus, although the project proposes a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the allowable development intensity would be
reduced compared to that analyzed as part of the 2016 AQMP. Thus, it can be concluded
that the proposed project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP projections.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-3 August 2019
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
Compliance with all feasible emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would
be required as identified in Response 4.3(b). As such, the proposed project would meet this
2016 AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the
AQMP?
As noted above, the emissions projections in the 2016 AQMP are based on land use planning
strategies set forth in the General Plan, and SCAG’s RCP and RTP/SCS. As discussed in
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Table 4.7-3, Consistency with the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS, the proposed project would serve to implement several City and SCAG land use
strategies and policies. The project consists of constructing a commercial (restaurant) use in
a developed portion of the City in close proximity to commercial and residential uses and is
considered a less intense development than originally planned for in the General Plan (i.e.,
the project would have maximum FAR of 1.0 which is lower than the NMIX maximum FAR of
1.5). Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use planning strategies
set forth in the 2016 AQMP.
In conclusion, the determination of the 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with
the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would
not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality
standards. Also, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the
2016 AQMP for control of fugitive dust. As discussed above, the proposed project would also
be consistent with SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with
the 2016 AQMP.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction related activities would generate short-term air quality impacts. Construction
activities would include demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural
coating. The duration of construction activities associated with the proposed project is estimated
to last approximately six months and commence in May 2019. Construction activities would
require approximately 950 cubic yards of soil export. Construction equipment would include
excavators, graders, off-highway tractors, paving equipment, rollers, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
and trenchers. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based
on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored
into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction
period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, and the amount of
materials to be transported on- or off-site.
In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was utilized to model construction
emissions for ROG, NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, and PM2.5. CalEEMod allows the user
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-4 August 2019
to input mitigation measures such as watering the construction area to limit fugitive dust.
Mitigation measures that were inputted into CalEEMod allow for certain reduction credits and
result in a decrease of pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon studies developed
by CARB, SCAQMD, and other air quality management districts throughout California, and were
programmed within CalEEMod.
Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for the CalEEMod modeling outputs
and results. Table 4.3-1, Construction Related Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-
term construction emissions. Table 4.3-1 also provides the reduction associated with mitigation
measures calculated by CalEEMod.
Table 4.3-1
Construction Related Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2019
Unmitigated Emissions 8.01 36.12 24.70 0.05 10.71 2.20
Mitigated Emissions2,3 8.01 36.12 24.70 0.05 4.70 1.75
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction
equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water
all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
3. Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial,
temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living
and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground
excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as
construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on
the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading,
excavation, and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project
completion.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local
nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10
poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear,
industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground
or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly
derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well
as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the
atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-5 August 2019
components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount
varying in different locations.
As shown in Table 4.3-1, PM10 and PM2.5 unmitigated emissions would not exceed the established
SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in less than significant project impacts. Notwithstanding,
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering),
limitations on construction hours, and adherence to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require
watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations, which would further reduce the project’s less than significant impacts. It should
be noted that these reductions were applied in CalEEMod, as demonstrated in Table 4.3-1.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations, which would be verified and enforced through the City’s development review
process. As depicted in Table 4.3-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 construction-related unmitigated
emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of
machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment
is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table
4.3-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e. ROG, NOx, CO, SO2,
PM10, and PM2.5) would be below the established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality
impacts from equipment and vehicle exhaust emission would be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings
creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. All architectural coatings for the new restaurant
structure would be required to comply with SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural
Coating. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG
content of paint. As shown in Table 4.3-1, ROG emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds
and impacts remain at less than significant levels.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human
health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types
such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known
human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air
contaminant by the CARB in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or
crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality
and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads,
landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be
released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for
development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of
releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can
act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such
rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology,
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-6 August 2019
A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not
known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.
Total Daily Construction Emissions
As indicated in Table 4.3-1, impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants during
construction. Implementation of standard SCAQMD measures (required by Mitigation Measure
AQ-1) would further reduce these emissions. Thus, construction related air emissions would be
less than significant.
LONG-TERM EMISSIONS
Project-generated emissions would be associated with mobile source emissions from motor
vehicle use, energy emissions from energy consumption, and area sources generated by the use
of natural-gas-fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and
architectural coatings. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed project are
summarized in Table 4.3-2, Long-Term Operational Emissions.
Table 4.3-2
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1, 2
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Emissions 2.10 6.72 17.42 0.04 3.65 1.01
Area Source Emissions 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.04 0.32 0.27 0.00 0.02 0.02
Total Emissions 2.25 7.04 17.69 0.05 3.68 1.04
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Notes:
1. Based on CalEEMod modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions have been modeled.
2. Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.
Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either
regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of
regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind
currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant,
dispersing rapidly at the source.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (included in Appendix 8.7, Traffic Impact Analysis and
Circulation Plan), the proposed project would generate approximately 1,612 daily trips. Table 4.3-
2, Long-Term Operational Emissions, presents the anticipated mobile source emissions. As
shown in Table 4.3-2, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project
would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts from mobile source air emissions
would be less than significant.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-7 August 2019
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions (i.e. ROG and CO emissions) would be generated from consumer
products, architectural coating, and landscaping. As shown in Table 4.3-2, all criteria pollutants
from area source emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions (i.e. ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions) would be generated
as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage associated with the proposed project.
The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and
cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy use from systems
covered by Title 24 (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC], water heating, and the
lighting systems), appliances, and other sources not covered by Title 24 are calculated in
CalEEMod. As shown in Table 4.3-2, all criteria pollutants from energy source emissions would
be below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds.
Total Operational Emissions
As indicated in Table 4.3-2, operational emissions from the proposed project would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading
Plan and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention
measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, the City
Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plans and specifications comply with SCAQMD
Rule 402, which requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent
fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. The following measures shall be
implemented to reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered during daily
construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site
to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The Applicant shall submit a watering
plan to control fugitive dust;
• Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply
non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the
site during site disturbance;
• Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed,
covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;
• All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
• Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after
construction is completed in the affected area;
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-8 August 2019
• Track-out devices such as gravel bed track-out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet
long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be
installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes;
• On-site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
• Trucks associated with soil-hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and
utilize City-designated truck routes to the extent feasible.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the air basin is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. With respect to the proposed
project’s construction-related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the
SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2016
AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) mandates. As such, the proposed project would
implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403
requirements. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control
measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted
2016 AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the
CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, all construction
projects throughout the Basin would be required to comply with these same requirements (i.e.,
Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance
with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures).
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts,
as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted operational thresholds. Additionally,
adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to
cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies,
and plans are constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore,
cumulative operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation is required.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined
as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to
the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of
these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has
identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-9 August 2019
elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic
respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include a preschool located approximately 18
feet to the west, residential uses located approximately 112 feet to the west, and residential uses
located approximately 83 feet to the north of the project site. In order to identify impacts to
sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds
(LSTs) for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). The CO hotspot analysis
following the LST analysis addresses localized mobile source impacts.
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice
Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead
agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST screening
lookup tables for one, two, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST
methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from
mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over
five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 17, Central Orange
County.
CONSTRUCTION
Based on the SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs, the project would disturb
approximately one acre of land per day. Therefore, the LST thresholds for one acre were utilized
for the construction LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site is a preschool
located approximately 18 feet to the west. This sensitive land use may be potentially affected by
air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are
provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.
Notwithstanding, the SCAQMD Methodology explicitly states: “It is possible that a project may
have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to
the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.” Therefore, LSTs
for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis.
Table 4.3-3, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the construction-related
emissions for NOX, CO, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 17, Central Orange County. As
shown in Table 4.3-3, unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA
17, with the exception of PM10. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1,
mitigated construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for PM10 in SRA 17. Therefore,
localized significance impacts from construction would be less than significant with incorporation
of mitigation.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-10 August 2019
Table 4.3-3
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Source Pollutant (pounds/day)3
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Total Unmitigated On-Site Emissions1 33.80 22.33 9.80 1.91
Total Mitigated On-Site Emissions1 33.80 22.33 3.97 1.03
Localized Significance Threshold2 81 512 4 3
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:
1. For construction, the building construction phase emissions are presented as the worst-case scenario.
2. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold
Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the
anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (approximately 1.0 acre; therefore the 1-acre threshold was used) and the source
receptor area (SRA 17).
3. Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
OPERATIONS
As seen in Table 4.3-4, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, project-related
operational area source emissions would be negligible and would be below the LSTs. Therefore,
operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 4.3-4
Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Source Pollutant (pounds/day)2
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Operational
Area Source Emissions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Localized Significance Threshold1 81 512 1 1
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:
1. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold
Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the total
acreage for operational (the 1-acre threshold was used), the distance to sensitive receptors, and the source receptor area (SRA 17).
2. Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow.
Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway
or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children,
hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO
hotspots when a project increases the volume-to-capacity ratio (also called the intersection
capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service LOS
D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are
subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-11 August 2019
The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and
an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though
vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. On-road mobile source CO
emissions have declined 24 percent between 1989 and 1998, despite a 23 percent rise in motor
vehicle miles traveled over the same 10 years. California trends have been consistent with
national trends; CO emissions declined 20 percent in California from 1985 through 1997 while
vehicle miles traveled increased 18 percent in the 1990s. CO emissions have continued to decline
since this time. The Basin was re-designated as attainment in 2007, and is no longer addressed
in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-
vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/
maintenance programs.
A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO
Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for
microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin, and would likely
experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a
comparison to the proposed project, since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic
volumes within the Basin.
Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles
experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the
35-ppm 1-hr CO Federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one
of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT)
volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at
the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO
hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City of Orange near the project
site of the drive-thru facility due to low volume of traffic (1,612 daily trips, 93 a.m. peak hour trips,
and 74 p.m. peak hour trips) that would occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
ON-SITE VEHICLE IDLING
The proposed project’s drive-thru lane is designed to accommodate approximately 17 vehicles.
The volume of vehicles accessing the site would be minimal compared to the Wilshire
Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection ADT of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As
previously noted, the proposed restaurant will result in a low volume of peak hour trips. With a
marginal amount of vehicles accessing the site, there would not be a significant amount of vehicle
queuing in the drive-thru and a CO hotspot would not occur and impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation is required.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land
uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any of these uses or odor sources.
Due to the nature of the proposed project (restaurant), there is the potential for uses within the
immediate area to experience odors associated with restaurant operations. The project would be
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.3-12 August 2019
required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402, which prohibits discharge from any source of air
contaminants that cause nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the
public, and 1138, which requires the testing of specific cooking devices, a catalytic oxidizer control
device, or other control device or method found to be as or more effective, etc.. Although the
proposed project is not identified as a use resulting in objectionable odors, compliance with
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 1138 would further ensure potential restaurant-related odors during
operation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Construction activity associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty
equipment exhaust. Construction related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon
project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are
considered less than significant given the project size.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.4-1 August 2019
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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 wildlife 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?
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?
No Impact. The project site is located within a developed, urbanized area and is fully developed
with a commercial (restaurant) structure, associated surface parking lot, and is landscaped with
ornamental landscaping features. Implementation of the proposed project would include similar
uses including a commercial (restaurant) structure, associated surface parking lot and ornamental
landscaping. According to the General Plan PEIR, the City’s urbanized areas provide low habitat
value for sensitive species. Based on the site’s disturbed condition, project implementation would
not adversely impact any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. No impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.4-2 August 2019
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams.
Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by
regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to
be important wildlife corridors. According to the General Plan PEIR, riparian habitat and wetlands
within the existing urbanized area of the City occur along Santiago Creek. The project site is
located over one mile north of the Santiago Creek and there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities present on the project site or in the vicinity. Thus, project implementation
would not significantly impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
costal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the Federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands
include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. There are no Federally protected wetlands
present on the project site. The closest wetland habitat is located approximately one mile to the
south of the project site at Santiago Creek. Thus, project implementation would not impact
Federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Although the majority of the City
is characterized by urbanized areas with low habitat value for wildlife, the City’s primary functional
wildlife corridors are Santiago Creek through the center of the City; the northeastern portion of
the City and the Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridors, which link with Santiago Oaks
Park; and preserved hillsides and ridgelines in the southeastern portion of the City that link with
Peters Canyon Park. In addition, a significant amount of East Orange is currently undeveloped,
including the Irvine Ranch Land Reserve (IRLR) and the Nature Reserve of Orange County
established by the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP). These have the potential for wildlife corridors that are used by numerous species in the
planning area.
As discussed above, the project site is fully urbanized, consists entirely of developed or disturbed
habitat, and is located outside of General Plan identified preserves and wildlife corridors
discussed above. Further, the project site is surrounded by other urban uses. There are no areas
within the project vicinity which could function as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for wildlife. As
discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, project implementation would remove eight of the
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.4-3 August 2019
18 existing perimeter trees (queen palms and fan palms) along the western property boundary
(the existing 10 palms along the southern property boundary would remain); refer to Exhibit 2-4,
Landscape Concept Plan. An additional palm tree along South Main Street would be removed
as requested by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to provide clear line of sight
for OCTA bus operators to clearly see passengers waiting at the proposed relocated bus stop.
These trees have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for nesting birds. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and
importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. To reduce potential impacts to nesting
birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey to
determine the presence/ absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the
project site. If the nesting bird clearance survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 requires buffers to ensure that any nesting birds are protected pursuant to the
MBTA. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the project’s potential construction-
related impacts to migratory birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 In the event that vegetation and tree removal should occur between January 15 and
September 15, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting
bird survey no more than three days prior to commencement of construction activities.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no
active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the
clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Orange Community
Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird
nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered
during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside
of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer
shall be 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of
the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not
adversely affected by the construction activity. Prior to the commencement of
construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction
survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Orange
Community Development Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and
other appropriate agencies.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s participation in the NCCP, its Master Street Tree Plan,
and the Tree Preservation Ordinance function as the primary local measures to protect biological
resources. According to the General Plan PEIR, the Master Street Tree Plan and the Tree
Preservation Ordinance are effective procedures to monitor the potential for impacts to existing
trees that provide roosting and nesting habitat for native and migratory birds throughout the City.
The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance is codified in Municipal Code Chapter 12.32, Tree
Preservation. The Tree Preservation Ordinance restricts removal of trees, including those on
private property that are deemed to be “endowed with a public interest” or may be of historical
value “by virtue of their origin, size, uniqueness and/or national or regional rarity.” Trees
determined to be historic are compiled on a master list, which is maintained by the Community
Services Department and approved by resolution of the City Council.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.4-4 August 2019
As indicated in Response 4.4(d), project implementation would require the removal of eight on-
site ornamental trees as well as one ornamental tree along South Main Street. Pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 12.32.030, the Applicant would be required to obtain a Tree Removal
Permit. Pursuant to Section 12.32.060, the on- and off-site queen palms and fan palms are not
considered Historical Trees. With compliance with the Municipal Code regulations pertaining to
a Tree Removal Permit, impacts in this regard are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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 Impact. The City of Orange is subject to the NCCP. General Plan PEIR Figure 5.4-2, NCCP
Habitat Reserve Area, identifies areas within the City that are designated NCCP Habitat Reserve.
According to General Plan PEIR Figure 5.4-2, the project site is not located within the NCCP. No
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conversation plans apply to the site. Thus, the
project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.5-1 August 2019
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The information presented in this analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for
the 202 S. Main Street Chick-Fil-A Project (Cultural Resources Assessment) prepared by Rincon
Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) (dated June 15, 2018); refer to Appendix 8.2, Cultural Resources.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact. As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, a records search of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) was conducted on February 26, 2018 to identify previously identified cultural
resources that have been recorded on the project site, as well as previously conducted cultural
resources studies that have included a portion of the project site and 0.5-mile radius surrounding
it. The CHRIS search also included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), as well as available historic maps and
aerial photographs.
The SCCIC records search identified one previously recorded cultural resource within a half-mile
buffer of the project site. This resource, 30-158710, is a historic building known as the Porter-
French House (HRI Property #038076), which is a domestic single-story house of Spanish
Colonial Revival architecture and is listed on the NRHP. This resource is located outside of the
project site and would not be impacted by project construction or operations. The record search
identified no cultural resources within or directly adjacent to the project site; refer to Attachment
B of Appendix 8.2.
A pedestrian field survey of the project site and surrounding area was also conducted on June 1,
2018. The field survey of the property involved a visual inspection of all built environment features
at the project site, including buildings, structures, and associated features to assess their overall
condition and integrity, and to identify and document any potential character-defining features.
The existing restaurant structure was originally constructed in 1959, with additions to the
building’s street level façade at South Main Street and West Almond Avenue occurring in 1983.
Rincon’s evaluation of the property found no evidence to suggest it is eligible for listing as a
historical resource (including NRHP/CRHR listing), as the on-site building is not:
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.5-2 August 2019
• Associated with any important events or trends in history as it was one of many to have
been developed in the postwar era,
• Important in history,
• Significant for its architecture or associated with a noted/master architect/builder, or
• Yielding information important in history/pre-history.
Furthermore, the property lacks integrity to its historic period. The 1983 additions themselves do
not rise to the level of exceptional significance necessary for listing properties or additions below
the age of 50 years. A detailed description of the property, historic context, and evaluation is
included in Attachment C of Appendix 8.2. As such, the existing restaurant building is not a
historical resource under CEQA and development of the proposed project would not result in
impacts to historical resources.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site exists within a
highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. As discussed in Appendix 8.2, five
prior cultural resources studies have been completed within half a mile of the project site. One of
these studies, OR-03373 (completed in 2006), included the current project site and involved
archaeological monitoring for the Qwest Network Construction Project to the south. No
archaeological resources were discovered as part of this effort.
Based on the Cultural Resources Assessment as well as consultation regarding the proposed
project in accordance with SB 18, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources is not
expected to be encountered during site grading/construction. Notwithstanding, in the unlikely
event that project excavation uncovers previously undiscovered buried archaeological resources,
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all project grading and construction efforts to halt until
an archaeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and
recommends a course of action. Following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the
project would not significantly impact archaeological resources. Impacts in this regard would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to respond on an as-needed
basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries.
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted, and the qualified archaeologist
shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resources. If the archaeologist
determines that they are unique archaeological resources as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2, the archaeologist shall make recommendations on
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.5-3 August 2019
the treatment of the resources. The recommendations shall be developed in accordance
with applicable provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. The Applicant shall follow all recommendations made
by the archaeologist. The final written report containing site forms, site significance, and
mitigation measures shall be submitted immediately to the Community Development
Department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains,
and associated funerary objects shall be provided in a separate confidential addendum
and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written report shall be
submitted to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center within three
months after work has been completed.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the General Plan
PEIR, areas of the City generally east of SR-55 are identified as areas of paleontological resource
sensitivity. The project site is currently developed with an existing restaurant facility,
approximately 70 surface parking spaces, and associated parking lot lighting and landscaping
features, and is located greater than two miles to the west of SR-55. No unique geologic features
are present on-site per the General Plan PEIR. As no paleontological resources are known to be
present within the project vicinity, it is unlikely that the project would disturb paleontological
resources during project construction. Notwithstanding, in the unlikely event that project
excavation uncovers unknown paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would
require all project grading and construction efforts to halt until a paleontologist examines the site,
identifies the paleontological significance of the resource, and recommends a course of action.
Following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly impact
paleontological resources. Impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified
paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in
paleontology and demonstrated experience and competence in paleontological
research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation) to respond on an as-needed basis to
address unanticipated archaeological discoveries.
In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, all construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until the qualified
paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a
course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site paleontologist states in
writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage
paleontological resources.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is fully developed, and no human remains were
identified in 2006 during archaeological monitoring activities for the Quest Network Construction
Project, which included the project site. As a result, human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries, are not anticipated to be encountered during earth removal or
disturbance activities. Based on the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.5-4 August 2019
(Geotechnical Investigation) for the proposed project, prepared by Giles Engineering Associates,
Inc. (dated December 14, 2016) (provided in Appendix 8.3, Geotechnical Investigation),
engineered fill materials are present within the top 1.5 to 2 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Proposed excavations would be approximately 3.5 feet bgs or less, with the exception of the
proposed infiltration system, which would require up to 6 feet bgs in this portion of the subject
site. Although not anticipated, there is the possibility that unknown human remains could be
encountered in native on-site soils. In the unlikely event that human remains are found during
ground disturbing activities, those remains would be required to conduct proper treatment, in
accordance with applicable laws. California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 to 7055
describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during on-
site grading activities. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, which requires
that disturbance of the site remain halted until the County Coroner can evaluate the find and
notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) if the remains are of Native
American origin. The NAHC is responsible for contacting the most likely Native American
descendent, for the purposes of consultation. Following compliance with existing State
regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are
encountered, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-1 August 2019
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
4) 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
California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
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 waste water?
This section is primarily based upon the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
(Geotechnical Investigation) for the proposed project, prepared by Giles Engineering Associates,
Inc. (dated December 14, 2016); refer to Appendix 8.3, Geotechnical Investigation.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic
activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have
experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years)
and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site by Alquist-Priolo fault zone maps
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-2 August 2019
prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS).1 Potential damage due to ground rupture
is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. Since no known faults exist
in the site vicinity and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone,
impacts would not occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults
subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses
two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or
secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground
displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce
secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure),
liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement),
dam failure, and fires.
The project site is located within the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence
of several fault systems. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the closest known active
faults are the San Joaquin Hills, Puente Hills (Coyote Hills), Elsinore, and Newport Inglewood
faults, which are located approximately 6.51, 6.97, 9.41, and 10.46 miles from the project site,
respectively. The San Joaquin Hills, Puente Hills (Coyote Hills), Elsinore, and Newport Inglewood
faults have an anticipated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.10, 6.90, 7.85, and 7.50,
respectively. As a result, the project would likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during
its design life. In accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Municipal Code Section
15.04.010, California Building Code Adopted by Reference, structures built for human occupancy
must be designed to meet or exceed the CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC
includes earthquake safety standards based on a variety of factors including occupancy type,
types of soils and rocks on-site, and strength of probable ground motion at the project site. In
accordance with CBC requirements, a Geotechnical Investigation was prepared to determine site-
specific geologic conditions and appropriate design parameters. According to the Geotechnical
Investigation, no faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) are known to exist in the site vicinity;
refer to Response 4.6(a)(1). Nonetheless, the project would demonstrate compliance with
applicable seismic-related design requirements to reduce impacts related to strong seismic
ground shaking. The City of Orange Building Division would ensure incorporation of the
Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended actions as a condition to the project’s building permit.
Following compliance with the CBC and Geotechnical Investigation, impacts concerning seismic
ground shaking would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils
behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs
when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive
(granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Saturated, loose to medium dense, near
1 State of California Department of Conservation, Regulatory Maps, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/
cgs/informationwarehouse/, accessed May 21, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-3 August 2019
surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense,
cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general,
cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level
ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic
settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result
of a seismic event.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located within a designated
Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Based on the seismic designation for the project site and the
subsurface exploration conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for
ground failure (i.e., landsliding, ground lurching, and shallow ground rupture) is considered
unlikely. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Landslides?
No Impact. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever
utility lines, and block roads. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site does
not lie within a designated Landslide Hazard Zone. The project site is generally level and is not
located near unstable slopes. Thus, project implementation would not expose people or
structures to landslide hazards. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place,
and is a natural process. Common agents of erosion in the project region include wind and flowing
water. Significant erosion typically occurs on steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can
carry topsoil down hillsides. Erosion can be increased greatly by earthmoving activities if erosion-
control measures are not employed.
Grading and earthwork activities associated with project construction would expose soils to
potential short-term erosion by wind and water. All demolition and construction activities would
be subject to compliance with the CBC. In addition, project construction would be required to
comply with the water quality management measures identified in Municipal Code Section
7.01.050, Controls for Water Quality Management. The project would also be required to
demonstrate compliance with South Coast Air Quality District Rule 403, which would reduce the
potential for wind erosion during construction through the implementation of dust control
measures. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., Municipal Code
Chapter 7.01.050 and SCAQMD Rule 403), impacts during construction would be less than
significant.
Long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be required to comply
with the requirements set forth in the project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in
compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges; refer
to Appendix 8.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Reports. The project’s WQMP includes non-
structural best management practices (BMPs), such as education materials for property owners,
tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; BMP
maintenance; underground (infiltration) storage tank compliance; common area litter control;
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-4 August 2019
employee training; common area catch basin inspection; and street sweeping private streets and
parking lots. Structural BMPs included in the project’s WQMP include providing storm drain
system stenciling and drainage; designing and constructing trash and waste storage areas; and
using efficient irrigation systems and landscaping designs. Additionally, proposed low impact
development (LID) BMPs would include roof downspouts, grated inlets, subsurface infiltration
galleries, a debris and trash separator unit, and an underground infiltration system. The BMPs
identified in the project’s WQMP would reduce the project’s potential operational impacts
concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area
with minimal elevation changes (approximately 159.8 feet above mean sea level [amsl] along the
northeast corner of the site to 156.7 amsl along the southwest corner of the site). Any exposed
soil would be minimal and associated with proposed landscaping within the site. Project
operations would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during operations and no
impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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 an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located within a seismically-active
area. Evaluation of liquefaction and landslides is provided in Responses 4.6(a)(3) and 4.6(a)(4),
respectively.
LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move down
slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading
to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free
to move along sloping ground. The project site’s potential for lateral spreading is considered low
based on its relatively flat topography, distance from any slopes, and low potential for liquefaction.
No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
SOIL SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is underlain by fill materials consisting
of generally moist, very loose silty sand with trace to little clay. Native soils (i.e., generally damp
to very moist, very loose to medium density silty sand and clayey sand, and soft sandy clay) are
encountered below the fill materials. On-site soils were determined to have a low collapse
potential. Notwithstanding, the City of Orange Building Division would ensure incorporation of the
Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended actions as a condition to the project’s building permit.
As a result, impacts concerning soil shrinkage would be less than significant.
SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the maximum estimated settlement is considered
within tolerable limits for the proposed structure provided estimated settlement is considered in
the project’s structural design. Section 7.4 of the Geotechnical Investigation includes project-
specific foundation recommendations for fill placement and compaction. The City of Orange
Building Division would ensure incorporation of the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-5 August 2019
actions as a condition to the project’s building permit. As a result, impacts concerning seismically-
induced settlement would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles
that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when dry) or swelling (when wet). According to the
Geotechnical Investigation, the soils on the project site have very low expansion potential.
Recommendations for foundation construction are outlined in Section 7.4, Foundation
Recommendations, of the Geotechnical Investigation. Following implementation of the
Geotechnical Investigations recommendations, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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 Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.6-6 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-1 August 2019
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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 regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 440
million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.1 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to
see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) is also
an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their
effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs
have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their
impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record.
Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine
the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of
industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found
that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million. For the period from
approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-
industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 parts per million in 2005, with the 2005 value
far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. As of April 2018, the highest
monthly average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was recorded at 410 ppm.2
REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Federal
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor
have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG
emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the Federal
level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated
effects.
1 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2017 Edition,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm, accessed June 6, 2018.
2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Hits Record High Monthly Average,
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2018/05/02/carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-hits-record-high-
monthly-average/, accessed June 6, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-2 August 2019
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in
the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel
Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
• Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model
year 2020, and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to
establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a
separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products
and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency
labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor
efficiency, and home appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding. The EPA authority to regulate
GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).
The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean
Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding
in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (carbon dioxide [CO2],
methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and
sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme
Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that
form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.
State
Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have
raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global
climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a
real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.
Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global
climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG
emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures
and associated changes in climatic conditions.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and
adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG
emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to
be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.”
To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards
for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption
of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-average GHG
emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and
medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium-duty vehicle with a gross
vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport people),
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-3 August 2019
beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year
through 2016. When fully phased in, the near-term standards will result in a reduction of about
22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term
standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code
Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market
mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on
Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used
to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if
the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to
control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns
regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and
housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a
sustainable communities’ strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe
land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs,
will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and
light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated
every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies
affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each
MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG
reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding programmed after
January 1, 2012.
Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the
main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of Statewide
emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in
California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard could be adopted as a discrete
early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which
Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The
secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing
the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on
California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply
with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team,
made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-4 August 2019
report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary
actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive
and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State’s management
of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and
extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State’s first climate adaptation strategy.
This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change impacts in
the State of California.
Executive Order S-14-08. Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy
Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed
on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold
in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the “Renewable Electricity
Standard” on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most
publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-20-04. Executive Order S-20-04, the California Green Building Initiative,
(signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State-
owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private
commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission
(CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, commissioning and
retro-commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and
developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal.
Title 24, Part 6. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, located at Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations and commonly referred
to as “Title 24,” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California’s energy consumption. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building
components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration
and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC
adopted the 2016 Title 24 standards, which became effective on January 1, 2017, and are
applicable to the project.3 The 2016 standards continue to improve upon the 2013 Title 24
standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential
buildings.4 Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process.
Title 24, Part 11. The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, went into effect on January 1,
2017. Most mandatory measure changes in the 2016 CALGreen Code from the previous 2013
CALGreen Code were related to the definitions and to the clarification or addition of referenced
manuals, handbooks, and standards. For example, several definitions related to energy that were
added or revised affect electric vehicles chargers and charging and hot water recirculation
systems. For new multi-family dwelling units, the residential mandatory measures were revised
to provide additional electric vehicle charging space requirements, including quantity, location,
size, single EV space, multiple EV spaces, and identification. For nonresidential mandatory
3 CEC, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/, accessed June 27,
2018.
4 Ibid.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-5 August 2019
measures, the number of required EV charging spaces has been revised in its entirety.5
Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process.
Executive Order S-21-09. Executive Order S-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California,
directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS
program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006) which advanced
the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005
Energy Action Plan II.
Senate Bill 97. On June 19, 2008, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a
technical advisory on addressing climate change. This guidance document outlines suggested
components to CEQA disclosure, including quantification of GHG emissions from a project’s
construction and operation; determination of significance of the project’s impact to climate
change; and if the project is found to be significant, the identification of suitable alternatives and
mitigation measures.
SB 97, passed in August 2007, is designed to work in conjunction with CEQA and AB 32. SB 97
requires OPR to prepare and develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects
thereof, including, but not limited to, the effects associated with transportation and energy
consumption. The Draft Guidelines Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“Guidelines
Amendments”) were adopted on December 30, 2009, and address the specific obligations of
public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a project’s effects on
the environment.
However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigation measures are included or
provided in the Guidelines Amendments.6 The Guidelines Amendments require a lead agency to
make a good-faith effort, based on the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe,
calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. The Guidelines
Amendments give discretion to the lead agency whether to: (1) use a model or methodology to
quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2)
rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. Furthermore, the Guidelines
Amendments identify three factors that should be considered in the evaluation of the significance
of GHG emissions:
1. The extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the
existing environmental setting;
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency
determines applies to the project; and
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.7
5 Ibid.
6 See 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.7 (generally giving discretion to lead agencies to develop
and publish thresholds of significance for use in the determination of the significance of environmental effects),
15064.4 (giving discretion to lead agencies to determine the significance of impacts from GHGs).
7 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.4(b).
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-6 August 2019
The administrative record for the Guidelines Amendments also clarifies “that the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of California
Environmental Quality Act’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis.”8
The California Natural Resources Agency is required to periodically update the Guidelines
Amendments to incorporate new information or criteria established by CARB pursuant to AB 32.
Senate Bill 97 applies to any environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration, mitigated
negative declaration, or other document required by CEQA, which has not been finalized.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of
electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at
least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes
of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and
was signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities
Commission to establish a performance standard for baseload generation of GHG emissions by
investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a similar
standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not exceed
the GHG emissions rate from a baseload combined-cycle, natural gas fired plant. Furthermore,
the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must
be generated by plants that meet the standards set by California Public Utilities Commission and
CEC.
Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG
reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill
authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB
also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum,
technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions
as a roadmap to achieve the California GHG reductions required by AB 32 through subsequently
enacted regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California would
implement to reduce the projected 2020 “Business as Usual” (BAU) emissions to 1990 levels, as
required by AB 32. These strategies are intended to reduce CO2eq 9 emissions by 174 million
metric tons (MT). This reduction of 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent from 2002 to 2004
average emissions, would be required despite the population and economic growth forecasted
through 2020.
CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as those expected to occur in the absence
of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting
emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic
sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB
used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020.
When CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which
actual data was available. The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to
8 Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman,
California Secretary for Natural Resources, dated April 13, 2009.
9 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) - A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP).
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-7 August 2019
reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. On February 10, 2014,
CARB released the draft proposed first update. On May 22, 2014, CARB approved the First
Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The update also defines CARB’s climate change priorities for
the next five years, and sets the groundwork to each long-term goal set forth in Executive Orders
S-3-05 and B-15-2012. Lastly, the update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the
“near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the initial Scoping Plan, and evaluates
how to align the State’s “longer-term” GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities
in water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.
On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which
identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was approved on
December 14, 2017, and reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set
by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32.10 Key programs that the Second Update
builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and much
cleaner cars, trucks and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to
reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes. The 2017 Scoping Plan
establishes a new emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to
a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including
the land base, and will include enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero-emission vehicle
technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other
distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and
development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants
(methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use
planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and
other lands. In addition to Statewide strategies, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies local
governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and
identifies local actions to reduce GHG emissions. CARB recommends that local governments
achieve a community-wide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 MTCO2eq or less per
capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2eq or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB states that
lead agencies may develop evidenced-based bright-line numeric thresholds (consistent with the
Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term GHG goals) and projects with emissions over that amount
may be required to incorporate on-site design features and mitigation measures that avoid or
minimize project emissions to the degree feasible; or, a performance-based metric using a climate
action plan or other plan to reduce GHG emissions is appropriate.
Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The California
Supreme Court’s decision published on November 30, 2015, in the Center for Biological Diversity
v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No. 217763) (also known as the “Newhall
Ranch Case”) reviewed the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR prepared for
a project that proposed 20,885 dwelling units with 58,000 residents on 12,000 acres of
undeveloped land in a rural area of the City of Santa Clara. The EIR used a BAU approach to
determine whether the project would impede the State’s compliance with statutory emissions
reduction mandate established by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Court did not invalidate the BAU
approach entirely but did hold that “the Scoping Plan nowhere related that statewide level of
reduction effort to the percentage of reduction that would or should be required from individual
projects and nothing CDFW or Newhall have cited in the administrative record indicates the
10 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed June 27, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-8 August 2019
required percentage reduction from business as usual is the same for an individual project as for
the entire state population and economy.”11
The California Supreme Court suggested regulatory consistency as a pathway to compliance, by
stating that a lead agency might assess consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or in part by
looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from
particular activities. The Court recognized that to the extent a project’s design features comply
with or exceed the regulations outlined in the Scoping Plan, and adopted by CARB or other state
agencies, a lead agency could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with
performance-based standards adopted to fulfill a statewide plan for the reduction or mitigation of
GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, which
provides that a determination that an impact is not cumulatively considerable may rest on
compliance with previously adopted plans or regulations, including plans or regulations for the
reduction of GHG emissions. Importantly, the Court also suggested: “A lead agency may rely on
existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” (bright line threshold
approach) if supported by substantial evidence.
Regional
2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the
2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016–2040
RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS reaffirms the land use policies that were
incorporated into the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. These foundational policies, which guided the
development of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS’s strategies for land use, include the following:
• Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment;
• Structure the plan on a three-tiered system of centers development;12
• Develop “Complete Communities”;
• Develop nodes on a corridor;
• Plan for additional housing and jobs near transit;
• Plan for changing demand in types of housing;
• Continue to protect stable, existing single-family areas;
• Ensure adequate access to open space and preservation of habitat; and
• Incorporate local input and feedback on future growth.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS recognizes that transportation investments and future land use
patterns are inextricably linked, and continued recognition of this close relationship will help the
11 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No. 217763), page 20.
12 Complete language: “Identify strategic centers based on a three-tiered system of existing, planned and potential
relative to transportation infrastructure. This strategy more effectively integrates land use planning and
transportation investment.” A more detailed description of these strategies and policies can be found on pp. 90–
92 of the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in May 2008.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-9 August 2019
region make choices that sustain existing resources and expand efficiency, mobility, and
accessibility for people across the region. In particular, the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS draws a closer
connection between where people live and work, and it offers a blueprint for how Southern
California can grow more sustainably. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS also includes strategies focused
on compact infill development and economic growth by building the infrastructure the region
needs to promote the smooth flow of goods and easier access to jobs, services, educational
facilities, healthcare and more.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS states that the SCAG region is home to about 18.3 million people in
2012 and currently includes approximately 5.9 million homes and 7.4 million jobs.13 By 2040, the
integrated growth forecast projects that these figures will increase by 3.8 million people, with
nearly 1.5 million more homes and 2.4 million more jobs. High Quality Transit Areas 14 (HQTAs)
will account for 3 percent of regional total land but are projected to accommodate 46 percent and
55 percent of future household and employment growth respectively between 2012 and 2040.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS overall land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing new housing
and employment in the region’s HQTAs. HQTAs are a cornerstone of land use planning best
practice in the SCAG region because they concentrate roadway repair investments, leverage
transit and active transportation investments, reduce regional life cycle infrastructure costs,
improve accessibility, create local jobs, and have the potential to improve public health and
housing affordability.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is expected to reduce per capita transportation emissions by 8 percent
by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035. This level of reduction would meet the region’s GHG targets
set by CARB of 8 percent per capita by 2020 and exceed the region’s GHG target set by CARB
of 13 percent per capita by 2035.15 Furthermore, although there are no per capita GHG emission
reduction targets for passenger vehicles set by CARB for 2040, the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS’s GHG
emission reduction trajectory shows that more aggressive GHG emission reductions are projected
for 2040.16 The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS would result in an estimated 21 percent decrease in per
capita GHG emissions by 2040. By meeting and exceeding the SB 375 targets for 2020 and
2035, as well as achieving an approximately 21-percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions
by 2040 (an additional 3-percent reduction in the five years between 2035 [18 percent] and 2040
[21 percent]), the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is expected to fulfill and exceed its portion of SB 375
compliance with respect to meeting the state’s GHG emission reduction goals.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds. At this time, there is no absolute
consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead agencies regarding the analysis of global
climate change and the selection of significance criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both
public and private, have released advisories and guidance with recommendations designed to
assist decision-makers in the evaluation of GHG emissions given the current uncertainty
regarding when emissions reach the point of significance. Lead agencies may elect to rely on
thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by State or regional agencies with expertise
in the field of global climate change.
13 2016-2040 RTP/SCS population growth forecast methodology includes data for years 2012, 2020, 2035 and 2040.
14 Defined by the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS as generally walkable transit villages or corridors that are within
0.5 mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15-minute or less service frequency during peak
commute hours
15 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, Executive Summary, p. 8, April 2016.
16 Southern California Association of Governments, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for 2016–2040,
RTP/SCS, Figure 3.8.4-1, April 2016.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-10 August 2019
The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group)
to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their
CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September
2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for
development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.17
With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially
and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects
that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes
projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document
and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions
lower than a screening threshold. For all non-industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with
emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the project would be
excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower
than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a
recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the
third Option. Under the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it was below an
efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per service population (SP) per year or 3.0 MTCO2eq
per SP for post-2020 projects.18 Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation
(GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the
proposed screening level.
Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non-
industrial projects, the SCAQMD proposes a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year.
SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not
result in a significant cumulative impact. However, for the purposes of this project, the Tier 3
threshold is considered a general reference threshold. The analysis of this project is based on
qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA
Guidelines and compliance with applicable compliance regulations.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct
and indirect emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Implementation of the project would not result in
emissions of other GHGs (e.g., water vapor, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, Sulfur
hexafluoride, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, and chlorofluorocarbons) that
would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms
(CO2, CH4, and N2O) of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions
from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources (described below), while indirect
sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste
17 The most recent SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group meeting was held on September
2010.
18 The project-level efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per SP per year is relative to the 2020 target date.
The SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency-based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with
the GHG reduction target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be
approximately 40 percent. Applying this 40 percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold
for plans of 4.1 MTCO2eq per SP per year and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2eq/year.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-11 August 2019
generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas
usage, electricity consumption, water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste generation,
and automobile emissions. Project GHG emissions were calculated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, which relies upon trip generation data,
and specific land use information to calculate emissions. As indicated in the Chick-fil-A Main
Street Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan Engineers, the proposed project would result in approximately 1,612 new daily trips.
Table 4.7-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, CH4, and N2O
emissions of the proposed project without GHG-reducing design features and mitigation
measures. The CalEEMod outputs are contained within the Appendix 8.1, Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data.
The project proposes demolition of the existing single story 8,579 square foot commercial
structure to construct a Chick-fil-A restaurant, two-lane drive-thru, and 48 vehicle parking spaces.
As shown in Table 4.7-1, GHG emissions resulting from both construction and operation of the
proposed project would result in approximately 919.20 MTCO2eq/yr.19 Specific direct and
indirect project-related sources of GHGs are discussed below.
Table 4.7-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source CO2 CH4 N2O Total
MTCO2eq/yr3 MT/yr1 MT/yr1 MTCO2eq/yr2 MT/yr1 MTCO2eq/yr2
Construction (296.80 MTCO2eq/yr
amortized over 30 years) 9.82 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 9.89
Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source 754.99 0.04 1.04 0.00 0.00 756.03
Energy 118.32 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.49 118.90
Water Demand 6.49 0.05 1.14 0.00 0.33 7.96
Waste 10.66 0.63 15.76 0.00 0.00 26.42
Total Proposed
Project-Related Emissions3,4 919.20 MTCO2eq/yr
Notes: CO2 (carbon dioxide); CH4 (methane); N2O (nitrous oxide); MT/yr (metric tons per year); MTCO2/yr (metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent per year).
1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model.
2. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed June 6, 2018.
3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
4. Unmitigated GHG emissions are displayed. This represents a conservative approach which does not include Title 24 reductions.
Refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for detailed model input/output data.
DIRECT PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
• Construction Emissions. Construction GHG emissions from construction equipment,
worker trips, soil export hauling activities, vendor trips, etc., were calculated using
CalEEMod. Construction emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime
19 As previously discussed, CO2eq is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their GWP.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-12 August 2019
of a project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.20 As
seen in Table 4.7-1, the proposed project would result in 296.80 MTCO2eq/yr (amortized
over 30 years). The CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 was used to calculate off-road
equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel emissions. CalEEMod relies upon
construction phasing and project specific land use data to calculate emissions; refer to
Appendix 8.1.
• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated from consumer
products, architectural coating, and landscaping. As shown in Table 4.7-1, the proposed
project would not result in area source GHG emissions.
• Mobile Source. CalEEMod relies upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Analysis and
project specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. The proposed project
would result in approximately 1,612 new daily trips, which equates to approximately
756.03 MTCO2eq/year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 4.7-1.
INDIRECT PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
• Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod
and project-specific land use data. Electricity would be provided to the project site via
Southern California Edison. The proposed project would indirectly result in 118.90
MTCO2eq/yr due to energy consumption; refer to Table 4.7-1.
• Water Demand. The proposed project’s operations would result in a demand of
approximately 1.47 million gallons of water per year. Emissions from indirect energy
impacts due to water supply would result in 7.96 MTCO2eq/yr; refer to Table 4.7-1.
• Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result
in 26.42 MTCO2eq/yr; refer to Table 4.7-1.
TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
As shown in Table 4.7-1, the total amount of project-related GHG emissions from direct and
indirect sources combined would be 919.20 MTCO2eq/yr, which is below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr
GHG threshold. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the latest Title 24
requirements and California Green Building Code standards which would further reduce project-
related GHG emissions. The project would also install energy efficient lighting and appliances
throughout the project site, and incorporate water efficient irrigation systems and water reducing
features/fixtures into the proposed restaurant building that would further reduce GHG emissions.
Further, there are two Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus stops (routes 53 and
453) within walking distance of the project site (i.e. directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern
boundary) that would be accessible to patrons of the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant. As such,
additional reductions in the Project’s mobile GHG emissions could occur due to access to
alternative transportation options for Chick-fil-A patrons. The proposed project would result in a
less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions.
20 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-13/ghg-meeting-13-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2).
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-13 August 2019
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would contribute to cumulative increases in GHG
emissions over time in the absence of policy intervention. As discussed below, the project would
be consistent with relevant plans and policies that govern climate change such as the City of
Orange General Plan (General Plan), AB 32 Scoping Plan, and SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). It should be noted that the
City of Orange has not adopted a GHG reduction plan that the project can be evaluated against
at the time of this analysis.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF ORANGE GENERAL PLAN AND AB 32 SCOPING PLAN
The City’s General Plan has several goals and policies that call for the City to develop policies,
programs, and practices that can reduce the City’s carbon footprint. The Natural Resources
Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies for climate change listed below.
Goal 3.0 Prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate change and promote practices
that decrease the City’s contribution to climate change.
Policy 3.1 Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on the City’s human and
natural systems and prepare strategies that allow the City to appropriately
respond and adapt.
Policy 3.2 Develop and adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gases
(GHGs) within Orange by at least 15 percent from current levels 21 by 2020.
Policy 3.1 is generally not applicable to evaluating a development proposal as it relates to potential
strategies evaluated and prepared by the City. However, Policy 3.2 calls for the City to develop
a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHGs within Orange by at least 15 percent from current
levels by 2020. As discussed below, the proposed project would be consistent with the AB 32
Scoping Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Further, the project is designed to meet Title 24 energy
efficiency standards. The 2016 Title 24 standards are 28 percent more efficient (for electricity)
than residential construction built to the 2013 Title 24 standards and 5 percent more efficient (for
electricity) for non-residential construction built to 2013 Title 24 standards.22 Additionally, as
described in Table 4.7-2, Consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, the project would utilize
energy from Southern California Edison (SCE) which plans to achieve 80 percent carbon-free
energy by 2030. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS
which would result in an estimated 8 percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2020.
Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. A less than significant
impact would result in this regard.
21 Because the General Plan was adopted in 2010, “current levels” are assumed to be the City’s GHG emissions
from 2010.
22 California Energy Commission, Adoption Hearing, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-14 August 2019
Table 4.7-2
Consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan
Strategy Project Consistency
California Cap-and-Trade Program. Implement a broad-
based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit
on emissions.
Not Applicable. The statewide program is not relevant to
the project.
California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards.
Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second
phase of the system. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative
and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with
long-term climate change goals.
Not Applicable. The development of standards is not
relevant to the project.
Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and
appliance standards and pursue additional efficiency efforts
including new technologies, and new policy and mechanisms.
Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all
retail providers of electricity in California.
Consistent. The project is designed to meet California
Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) and Title 24
energy efficiency standards. The standards promote the
use of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation
systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption
in homes and businesses. Additionally, the project would
utilize energy from Southern California Edison (SCE), which
has goals to diversify its portfolio of energy sources to
increase the use of renewable energy. By 2030 SCE plans
to achieve 80 percent carbon-free energy.
Renewables Portfolio Standard. Achieve 33 percent
renewable energy mix statewide.
Consistent. As previously discussed, SCE plans to achieve
80 percent carbon-free energy by 2030.
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard.
Not Applicable. The statewide program is not relevant to
the project.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle
efficiency measures.
Not Applicable. State agencies are responsible for
implementing efficiency measures.
Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gases.
Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets
for passenger vehicles.
Not Applicable. The development of regional planning
goals is not relevant to the project. However, the project
represents an infill development within an existing urbanized
area and is located near several OCTA bus routes. As a
result, the project would be consistent with the smart growth
objectives of the region’s RTP/SCS (discussed in Table 4.7-
3, Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS).
Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the
use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in
goods movement activities.
Not Applicable. State agencies are responsible for
implementing regulations and promoting efficiency in goods
movement.
Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 MW of solar-
electricity capacity under California’s existing solar programs.
Not Applicable. The project does not include solar roofs
and is not part of the proposed statewide initiative.
Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium and heavy-
duty vehicle efficiency measures.
Not Applicable. State agencies are responsible for
implementing efficiency measures.
Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial
sources to determine whether individual sources within a
facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions
from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission.
Not Applicable. This measure addresses industrial facilities.
High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed
rail system.
Not Applicable. This calls for the California High Speed Rail
Authority and stakeholders to develop a statewide rail
transportation system.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.7-2, continued
City of Orange 4.7-15 August 2019
Strategy Project Consistency
Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building
practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new
and existing inventory of buildings.
Consistent. As previously discussed, the project is
designed to meet CalGreen and Title 24 energy efficiency
standards. The standards would include several measures
designed to reduce energy consumption.
High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to
reduce high global warming potential gases.
Not Applicable. State agencies are responsible for
implementing these measures.
Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at
landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other
beneficial uses of organic materials and mandate commercial
recycling. Move toward zero waste.
Consistent. Under SB 1383, the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is
responsible for achieving a 50 percent reduction in the level
of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by
2020 and 75-percent reduction by 2025. The project would
be consistent with SB 1383, and therefore ultimately reduce
methane emissions at landfills.
Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and
encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy
generation.
Not Applicable. Resource Agency departments are
responsible for implementing this measure.
Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy
sources to move and treat water.
Consistent. As the project would comply with CalGreen and
Title 24, the project would use water-efficient landscaping.
Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in
manure digester and at the five-year Scoping Plan update
determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020.
Not Applicable. The project does not include agricultural
facilities.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
1. Southern California Edison, The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, https://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/our-
perspective/g17-pathway-to-2030-white-paper.pdf, accessed June 13, 2018.
The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified
by the Legislature as the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). In 2008, CARB approved
a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32.23 The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions
which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-
monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade
system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update
identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These
measures build upon those identified in the First Update to the Scoping Plan. As shown in Table
4.7-2, impacts related to consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Strategies within the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS are expected to help California reach its GHG
reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 9 percent by 2020 and
16 percent by 2035.24 Furthermore, although there are no per capita GHG emission reduction
targets for passenger vehicles set by CARB for 2040, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS GHG emission
reduction trajectory shows that more aggressive GHG emission reductions are projected for
2040.25 Implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS would result in an estimated 8-percent
decrease in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2020, 18-percent decrease in per
capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2035, and 21-percent decrease in per capita
23 Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008.
24 CARB, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to SB 375, Resolution 10-31.
25 SCAG, Final 2016–2040, RTP/SCS, April 2016, p. 153.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-16 August 2019
passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2040. By meeting and exceeding the SB 375 targets for
2020 and 2035, as well as achieving an approximately 21-percent decrease in per capita
passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2040 (an additional 3-percent reduction in the five years
between 2035 [18 percent] and 2040 [21 percent]), the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is expected to fulfill
and exceed its portion of SB 375 compliance with respect to meeting the State’s GHG emission
reduction goals.
At the regional level, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS,
this section also analyzes the project’s land use assumptions for consistency with those utilized
by SCAG in its Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent
with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and
regulations, such as SCAG’s RTP/SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans
and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. Table 4.7-3, Consistency with the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS, demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set
forth in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.26
As depicted in Table 4.7-3, the project is the type of land use development that is encouraged by
the RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and expand multi-modal transportation options in order for the
region to achieve GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors required by SB
375, which, in turn, advances the State’s long-term climate policies.27 By furthering
implementation of SB 375, the project supports regional land use and transportation GHG
reductions consistent with State regulatory requirements. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS.
Table 4.7-3
Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and
demands, including combating
gentrification and displacement, by
increasing housing supply at a variety of
affordability levels.
Local jurisdictions Consistent. Although the project does not include
housing, it would be consistent with this strategy by
providing jobs in close proximity to housing and public
transit (OCTA bus service).
Focus new growth around transit. Local jurisdictions Consistent. The project is an infill development that
would be consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS focus on
growing development near transit facilities. Two bus
routes currently providing stops within walking
distance to the proposed project site (Bus Stops 5502
and 5523).1
26 As discussed in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, the actions and strategies included in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS remain
unchanged from those adopted in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.
27 As discussed above, SB 375 legislation links regional planning for housing and transportation with the GHG
reduction goals outlined in AB 32.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.7-3, continued
City of Orange 4.7-17 August 2019
Actions and Strategies Responsible Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Plan for growth around livable corridors,
including growth on the Livable Corridors
network.
SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an infill development that
would be consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS focus on
growing along the 2,980 miles of Livable Corridors in
the region. While SCAG identified 2,980 miles of
Livable Corridors along arterial roadways as part of
planning studies funded through the Sustainability
Planning Grant program, the land use strategies
contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS are not tied to a
specific corridor. The Livable Corridors strategy
seeks to revitalize commercial strips though
integrated transportation and land use planning that
results in increased economic activity and improved
mobility options, with an emphasis on fostering
collaboration between neighboring jurisdictions to
encourage better planning for various land uses,
corridor branding, roadway improvements, and
focusing retail into attractive nodes along a corridor.
Although the project would require a General Plan
Amendment to change the designation from NMIX to
General Commercial (CG), and a Zone Change from
NMU-24 to General Business (C-2), the proposed
Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant is considered a less
intense development than currently allowed at the
project site. Specifically, the proposed project would
have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, which
is lower than the current NMIX maximum FAR of 1.5
for the project site. In addition, the project would add
a commercial use (Chick-fil-A restaurant) to an area
that is currently developed with residential and
commercial uses. Further, the proposed project site
is walking distance to two OCTA bus routes.
Provide more options for short trips
through Neighborhood Mobility Areas
and Complete Communities.
SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. The Complete Communities strategy
supports the creation of mixed-use districts through a
concentration of activities with housing and
employment located in close proximity to each other.
The proposed project would support this strategy by
providing employment and dining options within
walking distance to residential uses.
Support local sustainability planning,
including developing sustainable
planning and design policies, sustainable
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.
Local jurisdictions Not Applicable. While this strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates, zoning
codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable communities, the project would not
interfere with such policymaking and would be
consistent with those policy objectives.
Protect natural and farm lands, including
developing conservation strategies.
SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an infill development that
would help reduce demand for growth in urbanizing
areas that threaten greenfields and open spaces.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.7-3, continued
City of Orange 4.7-18 August 2019
Actions and Strategies Responsible Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation
system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions, Local
jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy calls on
investing in the maintenance of our existing
transportation system, the project would not interfere
with such policymaking. However, it should be noted
that the proposed project is located in close proximity
to OCTA bus routes.
Manage congestion through programs
like the Congestion Management
Program, Transportation Demand
Management, and Transportation
Systems Management strategies.
County Transportation
Commissions, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an infill development that
will minimize congestion impacts on the region
because of its proximity to public transit (i.e. existing
OCTA bus lines).
Promote safety and security in the
transportation system.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions, Local
jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and protect
users from security threats, the project would not
interfere with such policymaking.
Complete our transit, passenger rail,
active transportation, highways and
arterials, regional express lanes, goods
movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.
SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions, Local
jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for transportation
planning partners to implement major capital and
operational projects that are designed to address
regional growth.
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation
Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the
project would include one electric vehicle (EV)
parking space. In addition, the proposed project is
located in close proximity to OCTA bus routes, as
well as walking distance to residential and
commercial uses, thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled.
Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Consistent. The Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
strategy reflects State and local policies to encourage
the use of alternate modes of transportation for short
trips. Thus, the proposed project would support this
strategy by providing one EV parking space. Further,
the proposed project would be within walking distance
to residential and commercial uses.
Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs, the proposed
project would not interfere with these emerging
programs.
Notes:
1. Orange County Transportation Authority, Next Ride Beta, https://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-
Schedules/NextRide/Location/?location=33.7897033,-117.86652179999999, accessed June 14, 2018.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, Chapter 5: The Road to Greater Mobility and Sustainable
Growth, April 2016.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-19 August 2019
POST-2020 ANALYSIS
Recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework would put the
State on a pathway to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030,
and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if additional appropriate reduction measures are
adopted.28 Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological
roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of
policies could allow the Statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting
that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could
allow the State to meet the 2050 target. Subsequent to the findings of these studies, SB 32 was
passed on September 8, 2016, which would require the State board to ensure that Statewide
GHG are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. As discussed above, the new
plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, imposing tighter limits on the
carbon content of gasoline and diesel fuel, putting more electric cars on the road, improving
energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries.
As discussed above, SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes a regulatory framework for achieving GHG
reductions from the land use and transportation sectors pursuant to SB 375 and the state’s long-
term climate policies. The RTP/SCS ensures VMT reductions and other measures that reduce
regional emissions from the land use and transportation sectors. Specifically, implementation of
the 2016 - 2040 RTP/SCS would result in an estimated 8 percent decrease in per capita GHG
emissions by 2020, an 18-percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2035, and a
21-percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2040. By meeting and exceeding the SB
375 targets for 2020 and 2035, as well as achieving an approximately 21-percent decrease in per
capita GHG emissions by 2040 (an additional 3-percent reduction in the five years between 2035
[18 percent] and 2040 [21 percent]), the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is expected to fulfill and exceed its
portion of SB 375 compliance with respect to meeting the State’s GHG emission reduction goals.
As previously mentioned, the proposed project is the type of land use development that is
encouraged by the RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and expand multi-modal transportation options in
order for the region to achieve the GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors
required by SB 375, which, in turn, advances the State’s long-term climate policies. By furthering
implementation of SB 375, the project supports regional land use and transportation GHG
reductions consistent with State climate targets for 2020 and beyond. In addition, as
demonstrated in Table 4.7-3, the project would be consistent with the Actions and Strategies set
forth in the 2016 - 2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2016 -
2040 RTP/SCS. A less than significant impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
28 Energy and Environmental Economics (E3). “Summary of the California State Agencies’ PATHWAYS Project:
Long-term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios” (April 2015); Greenblatt, Jeffrey, Energy Policy, “Modeling
California Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (Vol. 78, pp. 158–172). The California Air Resources Board,
California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Independent System
Operator engaged E3 to evaluate the feasibility and cost of a range of potential 2030 targets along the way to the
state’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. With input from the agencies,
E3 developed scenarios that explore the potential pace at which emission reductions can be achieved, as well as
the mix of technologies and practices deployed. E3 conducted the analysis using its California PATHWAYS model.
Enhanced specifically for this study, the model encompasses the entire California economy with detailed
representations of the buildings, industry, transportation and electricity sectors.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.7-20 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-1 August 2019
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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 for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
This section is based on the following hazardous materials documentation (refer to Appendix 8.4,
Hazardous Materials Documentation):
• Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I
ESA), November 21, 2016; and
• Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., Asbestos and Lead Identification Survey (Asbestos
and Lead Survey), May 24, 2017.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial risks associated with hazardous materials are not
typically associated with restaurant uses. Minor cleaning products along with the occasional use
of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance of the project site are generally the extent
of hazardous materials that would be routinely utilized on-site. Thus, as the presence and on-site
storage of these materials are common for restaurant uses and would not be stored in substantial
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-2 August 2019
quantities (quantities required to be reported to a regulatory agency), impacts in this regard are
less than significant.
Limited amounts of some hazardous materials could be used in the short-term construction of the
project, including standard construction materials (e.g., paints and solvents), vehicle fuel, and
other hazardous materials. The routine transportation, use, and disposal of these materials would
be required to adhere to State and local standards and regulations for handling, storage, and
disposal of hazardous substances. With compliance with the existing State and local procedures
that are intended to minimize potential health risks associated with their use or the accidental
release of such substances, impacts associated with the handling, storage, and transport of these
hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. During project construction, there
is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or
hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental
release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low
concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor
would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid
and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment.
Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are
appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law.
Construction of the project would involve approximately 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic
yards of fill with 950 cubic yards of export. Pursuant to existing Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations, the applicant would be required to perform soil sampling of all export/import soils
prior to transport in order to confirm no hazardous materials contamination is present. Should
contamination be present above regulatory thresholds, use of those soils would be conducted in
accordance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations (Mitigation Measure HAZ-
1). As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Based on the Phase I ESA, no evidence of historic recognized environmental conditions was
found in connection with the project site. Additionally, no recognized environmental conditions
were identified for the project site. Based on the findings and conclusions of the Phase I, no
existing hazardous contamination is anticipated to be present in the soil, soil gas, or groundwater
at the project site.
An Asbestos and Lead Identification Survey was conducted to confirm whether or not asbestos-
containing materials (ACMs) or lead based paints (LBPs) are present. The existing structure on
the project site was constructed in the early 1960’s and the interior was fully renovated in 2007.
Samples of the building material were collected for possible ACMs. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations classify asbestos containing building materials as containing
more than 1 percent asbestos. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requires a certified asbestos consultant to conduct work when materials consist of 0.1 percent or
more asbestos. Federal and State regulations require any disturbance of asbestos containing
materials are property trained and have the required respiratory protection and medical
surveillance. Based on the Asbestos and Lead Survey, ACMs were found in roofing areas,
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-3 August 2019
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Units, areas of patches and repairs, as well as
other various areas. Thus, demolition of ACMs on-site could result in the accidental release of
these materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires a licensed asbestos technician to perform
oversight over all abatement activities and to conduct a visual inspection to ensure the removal
of asbestos prior to building demolition. W ith compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2,
potential demolition impacts of ACMs would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The Housing Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines, EPA and California Department of Public
Health, regulate and require the abatement or in-place management of LBP hazards equal or
greater than 1.0 milligram per square centimeter of lead by Portable X-Ray Fluorescent Analysis
or more than 0.5 percent lead by weight by laboratory flame atomic absorption. Prior to the
demolition work and/or transporting debris from the project site, Health and Safety Code 25157.8
(AB 2784 National Resources) requires that all lead debris be sampled for waste characterization.
Based on the Asbestos and Lead Survey, two lead samples from Multi-Colored Paint surfaces
were found to contain lead containing materials at levels above the limit of detection in the exterior
window trim and exterior wood sliding, rafter tails, and overhangs. Thus, demolition of LBPs on-
site could result in the accidental release of these materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would
require a lead certified professional to conduct in-place management work of lead-based
materials surfaces reported above the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Limit of Detection, scheduled for demolition, and ensure proper preparation, abatement, and
disposal. Thus, with compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, potential demolition impacts of
LBPs would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Operational activities would include typical restaurant practices. Minor cleaning products along
with the occasional use of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance of the project are
generally the extent of hazardous materials that would be routinely utilized on-site. There is
limited potential for activities of this nature to cause a significant hazardous materials release.
Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
In conclusion, it is unlikely that the project would accidentally release hazardous materials into
the environment during construction and operation activities. Further, after compliance with
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, construction-related impacts involving potential
hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the applicant has retained a qualified
Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist to perform soil sampling of all export and import
soils to confirm no hazardous materials contamination is present. Should contamination
be present above regulatory thresholds, use of those soils shall be conducted in
accordance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
HAZ-2 Grading plans, approved by the City Engineer, shall indicate that prior to and during
structure demolition, a licensed asbestos technician shall perform abatement planning,
monitoring, oversight, and reporting. Visual inspection clearance shall be completed by
the licensed asbestos technician prior demolition to ensure asbestos materials have
been removed from the structure.
HAZ-3 Grading plans, approved by the City Engineer, shall indicate that prior to, and during
structure demolition, a lead certified professional shall conduct in-place management
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-4 August 2019
work of lead based materials surfaces reported above the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Limit of Detection and are scheduled for demolition, and
ensure proper preparation, abatement, and disposal.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The nearest school to the project
site is the Portola Middle School (located at 270 North Palm Drive, approximately 0.25 mile north
of the project site). As noted above in Response 4.8(a), the types of materials that could be
utilized during operation of the restaurant are expected to include cleaning and maintenance
products, pesticides and herbicides, paints, and solvents and degreasers. It is not anticipated
that the restaurant use would involve the disposal of hazardous materials in reportable quantities.
Further, as discussed above in Response 4.8(b), all handling of building demolition materials
would be conducted pursuant to existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, enforce
through Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3. With incorporation of mitigation measures,
a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3.
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 Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a
regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health
Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water
wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis
pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local
enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from
which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
Based on the Phase I ESA, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. Thus, no impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or
private airports or airstrips within two miles of the project site. The nearest airport to the project
site is John Wayne Airport/Orange County Airport, located at 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa,
CA 92626, approximately seven miles to the south of the project site. Therefore, no impact would
occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-5 August 2019
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.8(e).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project construction activities could
result in short-term temporary impacts to street traffic along West Almond Avenue and South Main
Street. While temporary lane closures may be required, travel along surrounding roadways would
remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Additionally, the
General Plan does not identify West Almond Avenue or South Main Street as Evacuation
Corridors. According to the General Plan, the City maintains an emergency preparedness and
emergency response procedures plan (City of Orange Emergency Operations Plan [Emergency
Operations Plan]) in accordance with the State Office of Emergency Services guidelines for multi-
hazard functional planning. The Emergency Operations Plan consists of: 1) a basic plan; 2)
annexes which address specific functions and duties of response agencies; and 3) a directory of
emergency response resources. The plan indicates the City of Orange Fire Department provides
emergency medical and fire protection support, and the City of Orange Police Department is
responsible for coordinating law enforcement and communications operations. Other City
departments are referenced as supporting agencies or organizations. The project would not affect
the existing emergency service operations. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The project site is located within a completely urbanized area that is void of any
wildland areas. Further, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
the project site is not located within the vicinity of a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.”1 Thus,
no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire hazard Severity Zones in SRA, adopted on October
2011, http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps.php, accessed May 21, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.8-6 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-1 August 2019
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e. 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
l. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction
activities?
m. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from
areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading
docks or other outdoor work areas?
n. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the
beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-2 August 2019
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
o. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
p. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
This section is based on the following hydrology and water quality documentation, provided by
the Applicant (refer to Appendix 8.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Reports):
• Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Drainage Study (Drainage Study), June 26, 2018;
and
• Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), March 18, 2019.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean W ater Act, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges. In
California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES
permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The
NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities.
The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to
preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Orange is within the jurisdiction
of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project may result in water quality impacts during short-term construction activities.
The grading/excavation required for project implementation would result in exposed soils that may
be subject to wind and water erosion. Since the project impact area (approximately 0.95-acre)
would be less than one acre in size, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements
of the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program. Short-term construction impacts
would be minimal, as grading activities consist of 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of
fill with 950 cubic yards of export.
Construction activities would also be required to comply with Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and
Stormwater Discharges, of the City of Orange Municipal Code (Municipal Code). This chapter
includes conditions and requirements established by the City related to the control of urban
pollutants to stormwater runoff. Construction activities would be required to comply with water
quality best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the requirements of the City of
Orange’s Tract # 3086, Lot 27, Site Development Permit # 0904-17 and APN 390-264-28,
included in Appendix 8.5. Upon adherence to the project’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
and Grading Plans and existing laws and regulations, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-3 August 2019
LONG-TERM OPERATIONS
The project would be regulated under the NPDES Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permits issued
by the Santa Ana RWQCB for Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030 and NPDES Permit No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062).1 Since 1990, operators of MS4s are
required to develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants
from impacting water resources via stormwater runoff. The Orange County Stormwater Program
(Stormwater Program) is a cooperative of the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFCD), and all 34 Orange County cities. As the Principal Permittee on the Santa Ana
RWQCB NPDES permits, the County guides development and implementation of the Stormwater
Program, collaborating regularly with co-permittees to ensure compliance and prevent ocean
pollution.
The Stormwater Program’s specific water pollutant control elements are documented in the
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP satisfies the NPDES permit conditions to
reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable for the protection of water quality
at receiving water bodies and the support of designated beneficial uses. The DAMP contains
guidance on both structural and nonstructural BMPs for meeting these goals. With
implementation of the DAMP requirements, as required by Municipal Code Chapter 7.01, Water
Quality and Stormwater Discharge, the project would be required to prepare a WQMP in
accordance with the requirements of the NPDES standards.
The Applicant has prepared a preliminary WQMP, which includes non-structural BMPs, such as
education materials for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common
area landscape management; BMP maintenance; underground (infiltration) storage tank
compliance; common area litter control; employee training; common area catch basin inspection;
and street sweeping private streets and parking lots. Structural BMPs included in the project’s
WQMP include providing storm drain system stenciling and drainage; designing and constructing
trash and waste storage areas; and using efficient irrigation systems and landscaping designs.
The proposed project would involve installing an underground infiltration system sized and
designed to capture stormwater flow in underground storage tanks on-site. The underground
storage tanks have a total design capture volume of 2,122.4 cubic feet. Stormwater flows into
the underground infiltration system would first be filtered of trash, debris, sediments, and
hydrocarbons by grate inlet insets and a debris separator installed upstream. For overflows that
exceed the design capacity of the underground storage tanks, a bypass system would be installed
that would outlet to an existing 12-inch storm drain at the southwest portion of the project site,
which would then flow off-site onto the property to the south (similar to existing conditions) via a
12-inch storm drain, and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system via an existing catch basin.
Following compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit (including finalization of the
WQMP for the project), the DAMP, and Orange Municipal Code, project implementation would
not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements associated with long-
term operations. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for the County
of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa
Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, May 22, 2009, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/09_030_OC_MS4_as_amended_by_10_062.pdf,
accessed May 21, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-4 August 2019
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere with groundwater recharge. As discussed in the project’s Geotechnical Investigation,
groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigations to the maximum depth
explored (16.5 feet); refer to Appendix 8.3, Geotechnical Investigation. As discussed in further
detail in Response 4.18(d), implementation of the project would not create a substantial demand
on groundwater sources and would not significantly change the amount of groundwater available
and pumped from local wells. The 0.95-acre site is currently developed with a former commercial
restaurant structure and surface parking lot. Due to the developed nature of the site, the project
site does not have the capacity to serve as a significant source for groundwater recharge. The
project does not involve the direct withdrawal of groundwater for municipal use and would not
substantially interfere with recharge capabilities. Thus, the redevelopment of the site to a
proposed drive-thru restaurant would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. Soil disturbance would temporarily occur during project
construction due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and
utilities, soil compaction and moving, and grading. Disturbed soils would be susceptible to high
rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the
project site.
The project would be subject to compliance with the BMPs identified in the project’s Erosion and
Sediment Control Plans and Grading Plans as well as the requirements set forth in Municipal
Code Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges; refer to Response 4.9(a).
Compliance with the Municipal Code, would reduce the volume of sediment-laden runoff
discharging from the site. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial
increase in erosion or siltation on- or off-site during construction. Further, no existing channels
are located within proximity to the project site. The nearest channel, the Bitterbush Channel, is
located approximately 0.6-mile to the northwest of the project site.2
Given the nature of proposed use and the urbanized project setting, long-term operation of the
project would not have the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation off-site. The project
would not include large areas of exposed soils that would be subject to runoff; rather, any unpaved
areas would be improved with groundcover and landscaping to minimize the potential for
erosion/siltation. In addition, as stated within Response 4.9(a), the project would also be subject
to existing requirements of the NPDES permit (including approval of the project’s WQMP), DAMP,
and Municipal Code Chapter 7.01. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
2 City of Orange, Storm Water Local Implementation Plan (LIP), High Threat Residential Areas, July 2011.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-5 August 2019
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is generally flat and is located within an
urbanized area. Existing on-site runoff sheet flows from the north and east to an opening in the
existing block wall at the southwest corner of the site. Under existing conditions, this opening is
undersized and causes water ponding on-site. The runoff is collected in a grated inlet on the
property adjacent to the south and then flows south to an existing storm drain in Palmyra Avenue,
which is conveyed to the Orange County storm drain system that discharges runoff to the Santa
Ana River.
The project would construct a drive-thru restaurant and surface parking lot in place of a closed
commercial restaurant and associated parking lot on-site. Currently, the project site is almost
entirely paved (approximately 99.1 percent impervious) with a few planter areas. Development
of the project would result in a decrease in impervious areas from 99.1 percent to 86.0 percent, a
13.1 percent reduction due to increased pervious landscaping areas. Stormwater flow would flow
toward three 24- by 24-inch grated inlets on-site that would flow into an underground infiltration
system. Stormwater flows would be filtered of debris and trash on-site. Infiltration chambers
would be sized and designed to capture the required storm capture volume (the first 0.8 inches
of rainfall for all storm events). The infiltration chambers would infiltrate the receiving runoff within
48 hours. For overflows, a bypass system would be installed that would outlet from the lowest
grated inlet onsite into a proposed concrete channel and through the existing wall opening where
it will be intercepted into the existing storm drain system. Curb and gutter improvements are
also proposed off-site along the eastern portion of the project site along South Main Street.
On-site runoff (the first 0.8 inches of rainfall for all storm events) would be collected in the
proposed underground infiltration system. Based on the Drainage Study, this system would have
adequate capacity and would not result in flooding on- or off-site. As existing surface water flows
currently result in ponding at the southwest corner of the site, this ponding condition would be
alleviated with implementation of the proposed underground infiltration system.
As discussed above, during larger storm events, the proposed overflow (or bypass system) would
transport flows from the underground infiltration system to a proposed concrete channel within
the site and through the existing wall opening and into the existing storm drain system. Ultimately,
runoff during these larger storm events would be similar to that experienced under the site’s
existing condition. Thus, the proposed changes to the existing drainage pattern would improve
drainage flows and impacts pertaining to flooding conditions on- and off-site would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.9(d).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-6 August 2019
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves developing a drive-thru restaurant
which would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality; refer to Response 4.9(a).
Compliance with the NPDES permit (including finalization of the WQMP for the project), the
DAMP, and Orange Municipal Code would ensure impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area, the project
site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.3 In addition, no housing would be
constructed as part of the proposed project. As such, no impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows.
No Impact. As noted in Response 4.9(g), the project site is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard area. No impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Orange General Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report (General Plan PEIR), the nearest dams are the Villa Park Dam and
Santiago Dam located along Santiago Creek in the foothills of East Orange approximately 6.2
miles northeast and 8.2 miles east of the project site, respectively. Water from the Villa Park Dam
and Santiago Dam flows along the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately one miles to
the south of the project site, and discharges into the Santa Ana River southwest of the project
site. Given the distance and direction of flow away from the project site, potential flooding on-site
as a result of dam failure would not occur. Further, the project would construct one drive-thru
restaurant, and as such, would not expose a substantial number of people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin,
such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly
referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0161J, Map Revised December 3,
2009, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, accessed May 21, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-7 August 2019
displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the
downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.
As stated in Response 4.9(i), the project site is located approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the
Villa Park Dam and approximately 8.2 miles west of the Santiago Dam. The Santiago Creek
Recharge Basin is located downstream of the Villa Park Dam and Irvine Lake is adjacent to the
Santiago Dam. According to the General Plan PEIR, seiches have not historically occurred in the
City and no local mapping is available for areas adjacent to these water bodies that might be
affected by a seiche. However, as previously stated, water from these dams and lakes flows
downstream of Santiago Creek towards the Santa Ana River approximately 1.65 miles southwest
of the project site. Given the distance and direction of flow associated with potential seiches,
potential flooding on-site as a result of inundation by seiche would likely not occur. Additionally,
the project site is located more than 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is a sufficient distance
so as not to be subject to tsunami impacts. Further, there are no sources of potential mudflow
capable of inundating the project site due to the developed nature of the area and the relatively
flat topography of the vicinity. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Since the project impact area (approximately 0.95-acre) would
be less than one acre in size, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements of
the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program. Short-term construction impacts
would be minimal, as grading activities consist of approximately 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 250
cubic yards of fill with 950 cubic yards of export. As discussed in Response 4.9(a), construction
activities would be required to comply with water quality BMPs in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans and Grading Plans, and Orange Municipal Code Chapter 7.01. This chapter
includes conditions and requirements established by the City related to the control of urban
pollutants to stormwater runoff. Upon compliance with existing laws and regulations, impacts to
stormwater runoff from construction activities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the project has the potential to introduce pollutants
to the storm drain system from the on-site restaurant use. However, BMPs that target pollutants
of concern would be implemented and maintained to capture and treat stormwater runoff, as
required by the project’s WQMP. Specifically, the WQMP requires the following non-structural
BMPs: education materials for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions;
common area landscape management; BMP maintenance; underground (infiltration) storage tank
compliance; common area litter control; employee training; common area catch basin inspection;
and street sweeping private streets and parking lots. Structural BMPs required by the WQMP
include storm drain system stenciling and signage stating, ‘No Dumping – Drains to Ocean;’
design and construction of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; and
use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape designs. Additionally, proposed low impact
development (LID) BMPs would include roof downspouts, grated inlets, subsurface infiltration
galleries, a debris and trash separator unit, and an underground infiltration system.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-8 August 2019
Further, compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit (including finalization of the
WQMP), DAMP, and Orange Municipal Code Chapter 7.01, would ensure operational activities
associated with the project would not violate any water quality standards. Thus, impacts in this
regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas,
loading docks or other outdoor work areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve constructing a Chick-fil-A
drive-thru restaurant and associated surface parking lot. The project would not involve any
material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas at project completion. While construction activities may involve such activities, as
concluded in Response 4.9(a), construction activities would be regulated by the requirements of
the NPDES permit (including finalization of the WQMP for the project), the DAMP, and Orange
Municipal Code. Thus, stormwater pollutants generated on-site would result in less than
significant impacts in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the
receiving waters?
Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater leaving the project site would flow towards the Santa
Ana River – Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River Reach 1 Watershed. The Santa Ana River – Reach
2 provides the following beneficial uses 4:
• Agricultural Supply (AGR);
• Groundwater Recharge (GWR);
• Water Contact Recreation (REC1);
• Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2);
• Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM);
• Wildlife Habitat (WILD); and
• Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE).
4 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana
River Basin (8), Table 3-1, January 24, 1995 (updated February 2016), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/2016/Chapter_3_Feb_2016.pdf, accessed May 21, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-9 August 2019
As discussed in Response 4.9(a), compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit
(including finalization of the WQMP), the DAMP, and Orange Municipal Code Chapter 7.01,
impacts related to degradation of water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater
runoff to cause environmental harm?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(d).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.9(c).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.9-10 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.10-1 August 2019
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site currently consists of a vacant commercial restaurant structure and
surface parking lot and is surrounded by medical office uses and multi- and single-family
residential uses to the north and northwest; medical and professional office uses to the east;
medical office uses to the south; and institutional (pre-school) and multi-family residential uses to
the west. The project would demolish the existing building and construct a drive-thru restaurant
and associated surface parking lot on-site. The project would not physically divide an established
community; instead, it would replace the existing commercial structure on-site with another
commercial use. As such, the project would be compatible with existing surrounding uses, which
include commercial and residential uses, and no impacts would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
In 2010, in order to encourage the transition of the south Main Street Corridor to a medically-
oriented district with opportunities for hospital-related workforce housing and to support property
reinvestment, the City re-designated the site and surrounding properties from General
Commercial (CG) to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX), with corresponding zoning from General
Business (C-2) to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU-24). The land use change was also intended
to establish alignment between land use policy and the volume of pedestrian and transit activity
as well as housing demand associated with employees and visitor to the nearby St. Joseph
Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Orange County, medical offices, and major bus lines traveling the
South Main Street corridor. Additionally, the South Main Street corridor directly interfaces
established neighborhoods. Therefore, the development standards of the NMU-24 zoning also
considers neighborhood compatibility of new development on South Main Street. While the
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.10-2 August 2019
zoning allows for drive-thru restaurants, based on the City’s goal to establish a pedestrian-
oriented environment given the transit and pedestrian activity on Main Street, the zoning
establishes special design requirements for fast food restaurants in the NMU-24 zone.
Additionally, the NMIX minimum floor to area ratio (FAR) is intended to support higher intensity
development consistent with a neighborhood-oriented urban mixed-use district. Because the
operational needs of the proposed Chick-fil-A are not in alignment with either the City of Orange
General Plan (General Plan) or zoning requirements for the site, the project proposes to re-
designate the parcel back to the pre-2010 land use (CG designation) and zoning (C-2 zone).
General Plan Land Use Designation
As stated above, the project site has a land use designation of NMIX with a maximum density of
24 dwelling units per acre for residential development and minimum 1.0 to maximum 1.5 floor to
area ratio (FAR) for commercial development. As proposed, the project would not be consistent
with the intent of the NMIX designation for mixed-use development and would not meet the
minimum FAR of 1.0. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation from NMIX to CG, which has a maximum 1.0 FAR. The proposed drive-thru
restaurant would be consistent with the intent of the CG designation. Further, the proposed drive-
thru restaurant would be approximately 4,563 square feet on a 0.95-acre site, which equates to a
0.11 FAR; thus, the project would comply with the proposed CG designation’s maximum FAR
limit. Upon approval of the proposed project and associated discretionary actions, including
approval of the General Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s
new General Plan land use designation. Additionally, the project would replace a former
restaurant with a new restaurant facility. Thus, the project would comply with the General Plan
policies for CG designated areas.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan is the primary planning document that guides land uses in the City and contains
goals and policies for development, which pertain to the project. Table 4.10-1, General Plan
Policy Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the relevant
General Plan policies. As indicated in Table 4.10-1, the project would be consistent with relevant
General Plan policies with the exception of Urban Design Element Policies 1.5 and 2.1, regarding
street-oriented compact development. Since the project would be generally consistent with the
General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 4.10-1
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal 1: Meet the present and future needs of all residential and business sectors with a diverse and balanced mix of
land uses.
Policy 1.2
Balance economic gains from new
development while preserving the
character and densities of residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The project site is developed with a vacant and
deteriorated restaurant building and associated surface parking and
is therefore not currently generating revenue or contributing
towards the character of the project area. The project would
replace a former restaurant with a new restaurant facility providing
economic gains (e.g., sales tax revenue and employment
opportunities) to the City from the proposed commercial
development. Additionally, the deteriorated building would be
replaced with a new restaurant and associated improvements that
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-3 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
would enhance the visual character of the project area. The
closest residential neighborhood is located to the northwest and
west of the project site. Development of the project would not
impact the character and densities of nearby residential
neighborhoods as the project would replace a former restaurant
building with a new restaurant building. The project would be of
similar use and scale and is located near other non-residential
developments, including medical office buildings, commercial/retail
stores, and restaurants.
Policy 1.4
Ensure that new development reflects
existing design standards, qualities, and
features that are in context with nearby
development.
Consistent. The project would be consistent with the developed
nature of the area and would integrate into the existing visual
character of the surrounding vicinity. A single-story preschool is
located to the west and a two-story medical office building is
located to the south, immediately adjacent to the site. Single-family
residential uses and a three-story medical office building are
located north of Almond Avenue. Single-story medical office uses
are located east of Main Street. Auto repair uses are located to the
northeast. The project would be a single-story restaurant similar to
the former restaurant use and the site plan is designed similar to
the adjacent preschool to the west and medical office buildings to
the east with the proposed restaurant building set back from
property lines by a surface parking lot. Additionally, the proposed
building would be designed with various architectural building
elements, including a brick veneer, dark bronze parapets, awnings
and other metal storefront features, and “Powerwall White” stucco
with a sand medium finish, along with restaurant identification
signage; refer to Exhibits 2-5a and 2-5b, Building Elevations.
Adjacent buildings in the project area include medical office
buildings and single-family residences to the north, commercial
buildings to the east, medical office buildings to the south, and a
pre-school and multifamily residences to the west. The buildings
range in height from one- to two-stories and the proposed building
would be consistent with these adjacent buildings.
The existing NMU-24 zone allows for drive-thru restaurants;
however, based on the City’s goal to establish a pedestrian-
oriented environment given the transit and pedestrian activity on
Main Street, the zoning establishes special design requirements for
fast food restaurants in the NMU-24 zone. The project would be
consistent with several of the special design requirements
including, but not limited to, placing the drive thru lane away from
circulation routes, parking areas and pedestrian walkways, and not
adjacent to streets; width of the drive thru lanes; provision of a
queueing analysis to demonstrate adequate site operations;
providing adequate distance from the site driveway and drive thru
entrance; providing adequate distance from the drive thru entrance
and menu board; menu board and loud speaker operation;
enhanced pedestrian walkways; and adequate safety. However,
the operational needs of the proposed Chick-fil-A are not in
complete alignment with either the General Plan or zoning
requirements for the site including placement of the building toward
the street and parking areas between the building and front
property line. Additionally, the project would not be consistent with
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-4 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
the minimum FAR. Therefore, the project is proposing a zone
change from NMU-24 to C-2. The project’s minimum FAR,
maximum building height, minimum setbacks, signage,
landscaping, and other development characteristics would comply
with the development regulations detailed in Municipal Code
Chapter 17.18, Commercial Districts, for C-2 zone, and would be
consistent with the City of Orange zoning regulations for the C-2
zone and the Southwest Project Area Design Standards; refer to
Tables 4.10-3 and 4.10-4. Generally, the project would be
consistent with the NMU-24 zone with the exception of the
minimum FAR requirement and several special design
requirements related to street-oriented development; refer to
Response to Urban Design Element Policies 1.5 and 2.1, below.
Policy 1.6
Minimize effects of new development on
the privacy and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Consistent. The nearest neighborhoods to the project site are
single-family residences to the north across West Almond Avenue
and multifamily residences to the west beyond the existing
preschool (Little Scholars Academy of California). Given that the
project site is not immediately adjacent to either residential
neighborhood, project development would not have an effect on the
privacy of surrounding neighborhoods. As detailed in Section 4.16,
Transportation/Traffic, the on-site transportation circulation plan
required under Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would prevent drive-thru
queuing on-site by requiring Chick-fil-A team members to monitor
potential queues and to go out to the drive-thru lanes to take orders
with hand held ordering and payment devices to increase ordering
efficiencies and reduce queue lengths. The drive-thru would
provide stacking for up to 17 vehicles from the entry to the pick-up
window with additional on-site overflow space as needed. Should
the vehicle queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Mitigation Measure
TRA-1 would ensure Chick-fil-A staff direct customers to utilize the
Main Street access to enter the drive-thru lane, preventing vehicle
queuing nearby the residents to the west. Further, as detailed in
Section 4.12, Noise, the noise levels associated with the drive thru
speakerphones would not adversely impact the privacy of nearby
residences and would not exceed the City’s 55 dBA noise standard
for residential uses. It should be noted that noise from drive-thru
operations on-site would also be largely masked by traffic noise
along Almond Avenue and Main Street.
Additionally, as stated above and detailed in Tables 4.10-3 and
4.10-4, the proposed project would integrate into the existing visual
character of the surrounding vicinity and would comply with
development regulations and design standards in Municipal Code
Chapter 17.18 and the Southwest Project Area Design Standards.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-5 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Goal 2: Create successful, high quality mixed-use districts consisting of a mix of residential, commercial, office,
civic, and common open space land uses, supported by alternative modes of transportation.
Policy 2.4
Encourage mixed-use projects that
contain a variety of compatible uses and
provide necessary supporting public
and community facilities.
Consistent. This policy encourages mixed-use projects that
provide compatible uses and supporting facilities. Although
encouraged, the project site, along with other sites designated
NMIX, are not required to be developed with a mixed-use project.
The project would not prohibit mixed-use development within the
area or other portions of the City designated for mixed-use
development. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment
from NMIX to CG; if approved, policies pertaining to mixed-use
development would no longer apply to the project site.
Nevertheless, the project site is also located within the South Main
Street Corridor area of the City, which has a primary focus on its
medical hub associated with the Children’s Hospital of Orange
County and St. Joseph Hospital medical centers as well as
commercial, office, and multi-family uses along Main Street.
Development of a fast food restaurant on-site would provide a
place for medical office employees and residents in the area to take
a lunch break and is a compatible use within the South Main Street
Corridor area.
Policy 2.5 Minimize traffic and parking impacts of
proposed mixed-use projects.
Inconsistent. This policy specifically addresses traffic and parking
impacts of mixed-use projects developed in the City. The proposed
project is not a mixed-use development but is currently on a mixed-
use designated site. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent
with this policy based on the site’s existing land use designation.
Not Applicable. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment
to amend the site’s land use designation from NMIX to CG.
Therefore, upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment, this
policy would not be applicable to the proposed project and the
project would not be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 2.5.
Policy 2.6
Encourage linkage in and around
mixed-use areas using a multi-modal
circulation network, particularly transit,
pedestrian sidewalks, paths and
paseos, and bicycle and trail systems.
Consistent. Although the project proposes a General Plan
Amendment to change the designation for the site from NMIX to
CG, the project site would remain within an area identified for
mixed-use development by the General Plan. Bus Stops 5502 and
5523 for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are
located less than 0.05-mile from the project site. The existing
OCTA bus stop would be relocated approximately 100 feet to the
south; similar signage and bench would be installed consistent with
OCTA requirements. Additionally, based on the available transit
opportunities within the project area, project implementation is not
anticipated to interfere with access to any bus routes nor would it
result in a significant increase in transit trip volumes. The project
would also be subject to the City’s site access and circulation
requirements identified in Municipal Code Title 12, Streets,
Sidewalks and Public Places. The project would provide bicycle
parking for patrons and striped pathways from Main Street and
Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be constructed
to allow for pedestrian connectivity along both adjacent roadways.
There are currently no designated bicycle lanes adjacent to the
project site. General Plan Figure CM-3 identifies Almond Avenue
as a future Class III (On-Street) bicycle facility. The project would
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-6 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
not significantly alter the location of the existing driveways
entering/exiting the site; nor would it increase the number of
driveways that occur. The project would not interfere with the
ability to provide a future Class III bicycle facility on Almond
Avenue. Sidewalks are currently available adjacent to the project
site and would not be altered as a result of the project. Perimeter
site landscaping including shrubs and trees would improve the
pedestrian experience adjacent to the project site.
Policy 2.7
Ensure that the architecture, landscape
design, and site planning of mixed-use
projects are of the highest quality, and
that they emphasize a pedestrian
orientation and safe, convenient access
between uses.
Inconsistent. This policy specifically addresses development and
design of mixed-use projects in the City. The project is not a
mixed-use development but is currently on a mixed-use designated
site. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with this policy
based on the site’s existing land use designation.
Not Applicable. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment
to amend the site’s land use designation from NMIX to CG.
Therefore, upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment, this
policy would not be applicable to the proposed project and the
project would not be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 2.7.
Policy 2.8
Ensure that adequate gathering areas
or plazas are incorporated within mixed-
use projects and areas to allow for
social interaction and community
activities.
Inconsistent. This policy specifically addresses incorporation of
gathering areas or plazas into mixed-use projects developed in the
City. The project is not a mixed-use development but is currently
on a mixed-use designated site. Therefore, the project would be
inconsistent with this policy based on the site’s existing land use
designation.
Not Applicable. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment
to amend the site’s land use designation from NMIX to CG.
Therefore, upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment, this
policy would not be applicable to the proposed project and the
project would not be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 2.8.
Policy 2.9 Encourage mixed-use development to
include ground floor retail.
Inconsistent. This policy specifically encourages mixed-use
development to include ground floor retail. The project is not a
mixed-use development but is currently on a mixed-use designated
site. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with this policy
based on the site’s existing land use designation.
Not Applicable. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment
to amend the site’s land use designation from NMIX to CG.
Therefore, upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment, this
policy would not be applicable to the proposed project and the
project would not be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 2.9.
Goal 3: Create commercial uses that provide a solid economic base and employment opportunities and identify
Orange as an attractive and diverse shopping destination.
Policy 3.1
Promote development of revenue-
generating land uses that help defray
the costs of high quality public services.
Consistent. The existing use on the project site is a former
restaurant. Project development would replace the vacant building
with a Chick-fil-A restaurant that would generate revenue for the
City and contribute towards defraying the City’s costs for public
services.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-7 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 3.2
Actively promote the City as a place to
shop and conduct business, and
encourage local patronage of Orange
businesses.
Consistent. The site is located within an area of the City that
includes local- and neighborhood-supporting mixed-use activity
centers and corridors. Residential, a preschool, and medical office
uses are located within the immediate vicinity of the site. The
proposed fast food facility would be easily accessible to residents
and employees within the area and would likely be patronized by
both locals and visitors of Orange.
Policy 3.3
Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and
visual connections between commercial
areas and the rest of the community.
Consistent. The project would be subject to the City’s site access
and circulation requirements identified in Municipal Code Title 12,
Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places. The project would also
provide bicycle parking for patrons and striped pathways from Main
Street and Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant to allow for
pedestrian connectivity along both adjacent roadways and
commercial and residential uses. Sidewalks are currently available
adjacent to the project site and would not be altered as a result of
the project. Perimeter site landscaping including shrubs and trees
would improve the pedestrian experience adjacent to the project
site. The project would also include a landmark feature as a large
planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
The project would provide 48 vehicle parking spaces (46 standard
spaces [including one electric vehicle space] and two handicap
spaces), motorcycle parking, and parking storage for up to 12
bicycles at the front of the building for convenience and safety. The
restaurant would include two 12-foot drive-thru lanes (that merge
into one 12-foot lane) with directional signage located at the
northwestern portion of the project site. The proposed drive-thru
lane would wrap around the western and southern sides of the
proposed building, and vehicles would exit the drive-thru lane at the
southeast corner of the building. The drive-thru would provide
stacking for up to 17 vehicles from the entry to the pick-up window
with additional overflow storage for up to 20 cars on-site
During peak operating times, should queuing occur beyond the
available storage within the drive-thru lanes (17 vehicles), staff
would go out to the drive-thru lanes to assist with ordering via
Chick-fil-A’s iPad ordering system. Based on data from Chick-fil-
A’s other comparable stores, the iPad ordering system increases
the drive-thru speed of service by 30 percent than the typical
speaker box. It is acknowledged that the iPad ordering system is
always used during peak hours of 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and any
additional time when needed. Additionally, should the vehicle
queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Mitigation Measure TRA-1
would ensure Chick-fil-A staff direct customers to utilize the Main
Street access to enter the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management
would also direct staff to park in the stalls closest to the drive-thru
entrance along Almond Avenue. This would allow stacking, if
needed. The east-west on-site drive aisle along the restaurant
frontage is not considered a fire lane, so queuing within the drive
aisle is acceptable.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-8 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 3.4
Discourage commercial and industrial
enterprises that have significant
adverse soil, air, water, or noise
impacts.
Consistent. As detailed in Sections 4.6, Geology and Soils, and
4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed commercial
development would have less than significant impacts on soils and
water supply/demand, respectively. Additionally, Sections 4.3, Air
Quality, and 4.12, conclude that the project would have less than
significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
Goal 6: Advance development activity that is mutually beneficial to both the environment and the community.
Policy 6.1
Ensure that new development is
compatible with the style and design of
established structures and the
surrounding environment.
Consistent. Refer to Land Use Element Policy 1.4.
Policy 6.3
Establish and maintain greenways, and
pedestrian and bicycle connections that
complement the residential, commercial
and open space areas they connect.
Consistent. The project would provide two striped pedestrian
pathways from Main Street and Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A
restaurant to allow for pedestrian connectivity along both adjacent
roadways and surrounding commercial and residential uses.
Parking storage for 12 bicycles would also be provided in front of
the restaurant building. Landscaping and trees would be provided
along the project perimeter. Compared to existing conditions, the
proposed landscape and streetscape improvements would provide
a greenway connection to the residential neighborhoods to the
west; refer to Exhibit 2-4, Landscape Concept Plan. In an effort to
improve the street presence of the project, the project would also
include a landmark feature as a large planter at the northeast
corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote
community identity and provide a streetscape enhancement at the
Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Policy 6.5
Reduce pollutant runoff from new
development and urban runoff to the
maximum extent practicable.
Consistent. At project completion, stormwater flow on-site would
flow toward three grated inlets on-site that would flow into an
underground infiltration system. For overflows, a bypass system
would be installed that would outlet to an existing storm drain at the
southwest portion of the project site, which would then flow off-site
into the City’s storm drain system via an existing catch basin.
Based on the project’s Drainage Study, the underground filtration
system would have adequate capacity to treat stormwater flow. As
existing surface water flows currently result in ponding at the
southwest corner of the site, this ponding condition would be
alleviated with implementation of the proposed underground
infiltration system. Additionally, the project’s Water Quality
Management Plan includes structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMPs) for both construction and
operational activities. Implementation of these BMPs would ensure
water quality standards are met and pollutant runoff is minimized.
Policy 6.6 Enhance the walkability of both new and
current development.
Consistent. The project would provide bicycle parking for patrons
and striped pathways from Main Street and Almond Avenue to the
Chick-fil-A restaurant to allow for bicyclist and pedestrian
connectivity from both adjacent roadways and surrounding
commercial and residential uses. Sidewalks are currently available
adjacent to the project site and would not be altered as a result of
the project. Although the restaurant building would not be located
immediately adjacent to the street frontage due to operation
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-9 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
requirements, perimeter site landscaping including shrubs and
trees would improve the pedestrian experience adjacent to the
project site. The project would also include a landmark feature as a
large planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Policy 6.8
Maximize landscaping along
streetscapes and within development
projects to enhance public health and
environmental benefits.
Consistent. Trees and shrubs would be planted along Almond
Avenue and Main Street and along the western and southern
perimeters adjacent to the existing concrete masonry unit walls.
Landscaping would also be provided within the parking areas, on
berms, and surrounding the proposed restaurant structure. In an
effort to improve the project’s street presence, the project would
also include a landmark feature as a large planter at the northeast
corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote
community identity and provide a streetscape enhancement at the
Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Policy 6.9
Restrict development in areas where
exposure to hazards such as flood,
erosion, liquefaction, dam failure,
hazardous materials, and toxic gases
cannot be mitigated to reduce risk to
residents and liability to the City.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, and
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site
would not be at substantial risk of flood, erosion, liquefaction, dam
failure, hazardous materials, or toxic gases.
Policy 6.10
Mitigate adverse air, noise, circulation,
and other environmental impacts
caused by new development adjacent to
existing neighborhoods through use of
sound walls, landscaping buffers, speed
limits, and other traffic control
measures.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.3 and 4.12, air quality and
noise impacts associated with the project would be mitigated to
less than significant levels. Additionally, Section 4.16, concludes
that the project would have less than significant impacts to traffic
and circulation. Specifically, should the vehicle queue extend onto
Almond Avenue, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would ensure Chick-fil-
A staff direct customers to utilize the Main Street access to enter
the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management would also direct staff
to park in the stalls closest to the drive-thru entrance along Almond
Avenue. This would allow stacking, if needed.
Further, localized air quality emissions associated with idling
vehicles in the drive thru lanes in close proximity to sensitive
receptors (i.e., adjacent preschool and residential uses) was also
analyzed in Section 4.3. As detailed in Section 4.16, the proposed
restaurant would result in a low volume of peak hour trips, and
thus, it can be expected that there would not be a large number of
vehicles idling in the drive thru lanes at any one time. Therefore,
idling vehicles would not have the potential to generate a significant
carbon monoxide hotspot that could affect nearby sensitive
receptors. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Goal 8: Encourage active involvement of residents, businesses, and agencies in the planning and decision making
process.
Policy 8.1
Continue to provide opportunities for
public education and involvement in
land use planning decisions through
public hearings, community meetings,
study sessions, electronic media, and
any other appropriate and available
means.
Consistent. The proposed project is subject to the guidelines and
regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the City of Orange, including public hearing and noticing
requirements to provide the public opportunities for involvement in
land use planning decisions.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-10 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Circulation & Mobility Element
Goal 1: Provide a safe, efficient, and comprehensive circulation system that serves local needs, meets forecasted
demands, and sustains quality of life in neighborhoods.
Policy 1.1
Plan, build, and maintain an integrated,
hierarchical, and multi-modal system of
roadways, pedestrian walkways, and
bicycle paths throughout the City.
Consistent. As a proposed fast food facility, the potential for the
project to plan, build, and/or maintain an integrated multi-modal
circulation system is limited. However, the project does propose
two striped pedestrian pathways connecting Main Street and
Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant building as well as
parking storage for 12 bicycles at the front of the restaurant to
encourage multimodal activities. Existing sidewalks adjacent to the
project frontage would remain. There are currently no designated
bicycle lanes adjacent to the project site. General Plan Figure CM-
3 identifies a future Class III (On-Street) bicycle facility on Almond
Avenue. The project would slightly shift the existing driveways
entering/exiting the site along Almond Avenue and Main Street
towards the western and southern project boundary, respectively;
however, the number of driveways would not increase.
Additionally, the existing OCTA bus stop along Main Street would
be relocated approximately 100 feet to the south and would be
constructed with similar signage and bench, consistent with OCTA
requirements. Overall, the proposed pedestrian and bicyclist
improvements and relocated driveways and OCTA bus stop would
maintain and enhance the existing multi-modal circulation system in
the project area.
During peak operating times, should queuing occur beyond the
available storage within the drive-thru lanes (17 vehicles), staff
would go out to the drive-thru lanes to assist with ordering via
Chick-fil-A’s iPad ordering system. Based on data from Chick-fil-
A’s other comparable stores, the iPad ordering system increases
the drive-thru speed of service by 30 percent than the typical
speaker box. It is acknowledged that the iPad ordering system is
always used during peak hours of 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and any
additional time when needed. Additionally, should the vehicle
queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Mitigation Measure TRA-1
would ensure Chick-fil-A staff direct customers to utilize the Main
Street access to enter the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management
would also direct staff to park in the stalls closest to the drive-thru
entrance along Almond Avenue. This would allow stacking, if
needed. As such, all drive-thru queuing would be contained on-site
and would not adversely impact traffic flow along Almond Avenue.
Policy 1.3
Consider various methods to increase
safety on City arterials and
neighborhood streets, including
landscaping, provision of bike/transit
lanes, and consideration of traffic
calming on neighborhood streets in
accordance with the City’s
Neighborhood Residential Traffic
Management Program.
Consistent. The project site is located in close proximity to single
and multi-family residences to the west along Almond Avenue. The
project would incorporate landscaping along the site perimeter to
connect to existing greenways along Almond Avenue and Main
Street. Additionally, the project would implement an on-site
transportation circulation plan to ensure queueing in the drive-thru
lane would not impact traffic flow along surrounding roadways,
primarily Almond Avenue (refer to the discussion for Policy 1.1
above).
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-11 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 1.7
Consolidate driveways along roadways
that provide access to commercial uses
to minimize side street interruption and
promote smooth traffic flows. On-street
parking is prohibited on commercial
access streets to provide adequate
curb-to-curb width for travel lanes.
Consistent. The project site is currently accessed by two full-
access driveways (one on Almond Avenue and one on Main
Street). With implementation of the proposed project, the site
would be accessed by one unsignalized, full-access driveway
located along Almond Avenue and one unsignalized, right-turn
in/right-turn out only driveway located along Main Street. Table
4.16-15, Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary,
indicates the two proposed project driveways would operate at an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during morning and evening
peak hour periods for year 2020 with project conditions.
Additionally, no on-street parking is proposed or would be allowed
along Main Street and Almond Avenue per City requirements.
Goal 3: Connect centers within the City to each other and to the region through efficient and accessible public transportation.
Policy 3.3
Require incorporation of transit-oriented
design features within major commercial
and employment areas as well as in
medium density residential and mixed-
use development areas.
Consistent. While the project site is proposing a General Plan
Amendment from NMIX to CG for development of a drive-thru
restaurant, the project does incorporate design features to
encourage patrons to access the site from transit or non-motorized
options, such as walking and biking. Two OCTA bus stops are
located less than 0.05-mile from the project site. The project would
include one electric vehicle charging station as well as parking for
12 bicycles. Two striped pathways from Main Street and Almond
Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be constructed to allow
for pedestrian connectivity along the two adjacent roadways and
surrounding commercial and residential uses. Perimeter site
landscaping including shrubs and trees would improve the
pedestrian experience adjacent to the project site. In an effort to
improve the street presence of the project, the project would also
include a landmark feature as a large planter at the northeast
corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote
community identity and provide a streetscape enhancement at the
Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Goal 4: Provide efficient and accessible modes of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian transportation and improved
facilities and amenities.
Policy 4.1
Create a comprehensive bicycle network
that is integrated with other transportation
systems by establishing complementary on-
street and off-street facilities as identified in
the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan
and OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic
Plan, including Santiago Creek, the Santa
Ana River, and the Tustin Branch Trail.
Consistent. There are currently no designated bicycle lanes adjacent to
the project site; Almond Avenue is identified for future Class III (On-Street)
bicycle facilities (refer to Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic). The project
would provide bicycle parking for patrons and two striped pathways from
Main Street and Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be
constructed to allow for pedestrian connectivity along the two adjacent
roadways and surrounding commercial and residential uses. The project
would not significantly alter the location of the existing driveways
entering/exiting the site; nor would it increase the number of driveways that
occur. Thus, the project would not interfere with the ability to provide a
future Class III bicycle facility on Almond Avenue.
Policy 4.2
Install racks and safe storage facilities at
parking areas for City facilities, as
appropriate, and encourage incorporation of
such facilities within privately-developed
projects.
Consistent. The project would provide parking storage for up to 12
bicycles at the front of the restaurant building; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Site
Plan.
Policy 4.4
Encourage use of the bikeway system by
providing adequate signage, trail markings,
and other amenities.
Consistent. Refer to Circulation & Mobility Element Policy 4.2.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-12 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 4.5
Ensure that pedestrian sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways are safe environments through the
use of crime prevention-oriented trail design
features, lighting where appropriate,
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements
at at-grade rail crossings, access for
emergency vehicles, and links to the
roadway signal system.
Consistent. The two proposed pedestrian pathways from Main Street and
Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant building would include
pedestrian striping to ensure vehicles driving through the parking lot can
clearly see the pedestrian walkways. Bicycle storage is also proposed at
the front of the restaurant building in a convenient and safe location.
Interior site signage would be used to direct patrons to the drive-thru aisle
and toward the exits, as appropriate. Additionally, landscaping would be
implemented along the site perimeter and sidewalks, which would provide
a clear line of sight for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross the two
proposed driveways along Main Street and Almond Avenue.
Policy 4.7
Provide ADA accessible sidewalks and
pedestrian amenities throughout the
City.
Consistent. The proposed building and parking lot area would be
subject to ADA requirements, including required widths and for
entryways, paths, ramps, etc. The ADA ramp at the corner of Main
Street and Almond Avenue would not be impacted by project
development.
Goal 5: Provide adequate parking to meet the needs of activity centers throughout the City.
Policy 5.2
Plan for and design parking facilities
throughout the City that are adequate to
meet demand, but also consider land
use-parking efficiencies, and the
surrounding natural and built
environment.
Consistent. Considering the parking demand for the proposed fast
food restaurant use, the project would reduce on-site parking
spaces from 70 to 48 spaces (46 standard spaces [including one
electric vehicle space] and two handicap spaces). Motorcycle
parking and an area for bicycle parking for patrons would also be
provided. The reduced number of parking spaces would still meet
the project’s demands while considering land use-parking
efficiencies and the surrounding mixed-use and residential
neighborhoods.
Additionally, the project’s on-site transportation circulation plan
(Mitigation Measure TRA-1) would ensure potential drive-thru
queuing does not adversely impact on- and off-site circulation (refer
to the discussion for Policy 1.1 above).
Goal 6: Provide roadway corridors that are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to a feeling of safety, security, and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy 6.1
Supply adequate, clear, and correctly
placed signage to direct both motorists
and non-motorists toward destinations
and away from hazards.
Consistent. Refer to Circulation & Mobility Element Policy 4.5.
Policy 6.2
Provide clear indicators in the right-of-
way for where pedestrians and
bicyclists are encouraged to walk, bike,
or cross safely. These may include
special paving, line stripes, and
crosswalks.
Consistent. Refer to Circulation & Mobility Element Policy 4.5.
Policy 6.3
Provide lighting, landscaping, street
trees, and other appropriately scaled
streetscape features that accommodate
all users on commercial corridors.
Where appropriate, lighting should be
scaled for autos as well as pedestrians.
Consistent. Refer to Land Use Element Policy 6.8. Security
lighting would be provided throughout the site, as well as interior
signage and associated lighting consistent with the surrounding
area.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-13 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Natural Resources Element
Goal 2: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse.
Policy 2.1
Cooperate with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and other regional agencies
to implement and enforce regional air
quality management plans.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.3, the proposed project would
be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the
SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and would not
exceed any construction or operational emissions thresholds
established by SCAQMD.
Policy 2.2
Support alternative transportation
modes, alternative technologies, and
bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods to reduce emissions
related to vehicular travel.
Consistent. The project is located near a variety of residential,
medical office, and commercial uses and would be easily walkable
and accessible to residents and employees of surrounding uses. In
addition, two OCTA bus stops are located less than 0.05-mile from
the project site. The bus stop along Main Street would be relocated
approximately 100 feet to the south and would be constructed with
similar signage and bench, consistent with OCTA requirements.
The project would include one electric vehicle charging station as
well as parking for 12 bicycles. Two striped pathways from Main
Street and Almond Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be
constructed to allow for pedestrian connectivity along the two
adjacent roadways and surrounding commercial and residential
uses.
Policy 2.5
Continue to work toward local and
regional waste-reduction and diversion/
recycling goals and promote public
education programs.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with
50 percent diversion requirements under Assembly Bill 939 and
Municipal Code Section 8.28.
Policy 2.6
Encourage sustainable building and site
designs for new construction and
renovation projects.
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the latest Title
24 requirements as well as the California Green Building Code
standards. The project would install energy efficient lighting
throughout the project site and appliances within the restaurant.
Additionally, the project would install water efficient irrigation
systems, and incorporate water reducing features and fixtures into
the buildings.
Policy 2.8
Encourage development that
incorporates pedestrian- and transit-
oriented design and landscape
elements.
Consistent. Two striped pathways from Main Street and Almond
Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be constructed to allow
for pedestrian connectivity along the two adjacent roadways and
from surrounding commercial and residential uses. Sidewalks are
currently available adjacent to the project site and would not be
altered as a result of the project. Perimeter site landscaping
including shrubs and trees would improve the pedestrian
experience adjacent to the project site. In an effort to improve the
street presence of the project, the project would also include a
landmark feature as a large planter at the northeast corner of the
site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote community identity
and provide a streetscape enhancement at the Main Street and
Almond Avenue intersection.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-14 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 2.11 Protect the ecological integrity and
overall health of Orange’s watersheds.
Consistent. The project would be subject to the State Water
Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System requirements, the County’s Drainage Area
Management Plan, BMPs included in the project’s Water Quality
Management Plan, and Municipal Code Chapter 7.01 to ensure
project impacts on water quality are reduced to less than significant
levels. The project’s Water Quality Management Plan is included
as Appendix 8.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Reports.
Policy 2.12
Cooperate with water supply agencies
to protect the quantity and quality of
local groundwater supplies.
Consistent. The project would not deplete local groundwater
supplies. Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface
investigations on-site and the project would not create a substantial
demand on groundwater resources that would adversely impact the
amount of groundwater available and pumped from local wells.
Policy 2.13
Control surface runoff water discharges
into the stormwater conveyance system
to comply with the City’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Permit and other
regional permits issued by the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Consistent. Refer to Natural Resources Element Policy 2.11.
Policy 2.14
Reduce pollutant runoff from new
development by requiring use of the
most low development impact practices
and effective Best Management
Practices (BMPs) currently available.
Consistent. Refer to Natural Resources Element Policy 2.11.
Policy 2.15
Minimize the amount of impervious
surfaces and associated urban runoff
pollutants in new development and
significant redevelopment throughout
the community.
Consistent. Development of the project would result in a decrease
in impervious areas from 99.1 percent to 86.0 percent, a 13.1
percent reduction due to increased pervious landscaping areas.
Additionally, an underground infiltration system would be installed
to capture runoff pollutants that can then be filtered of trash, debris,
sediments, and hydrocarbons by a debris separator installed
upstream from the underground infiltration system.
Noise Element
Goal 1: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
Policy 1.1
Consider potential excessive noise
levels when making land use planning
decisions.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.12, project construction and
operations would not exceed established noise thresholds and
would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOI-1, which incorporates BMPs to reduce construction
noise.
Policy 1.2
Encourage new development projects to
provide sufficient spatial buffers to
separate excessive noise generating
land uses and noise-sensitive land
uses.
Consistent. Refer to Noise Element Policy 1.1. No spatial buffer is
required as part of the project as construction and operational noise
impacts are less than significant.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-15 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 1.3
Incorporate design features into
residential and mixed-use projects that
can be used to shield residents from
excessive noise.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.12, noise impacts associated
with operations of the fast food facility, including mobile and
stationary noise sources, would result in less than significant
impacts. Additionally, Chick-fil-A would incorporate Automatic
Volume control technology in the drive-thru order speakers, which
adjusts the outbound volume based on outdoor ambient noise
levels. For example, when the outside noise levels decrease in the
evening, the automatic volume control speakers would reduce the
outbound volume. Thus, the project would shield the nearest
residents from any excessive noise generated on-site.
Policy 1.4 Ensure that acceptable noise levels are
maintained near noise-sensitive uses. Consistent. Refer to Noise Element Policy 1.1.
Policy 1.5 Reduce impacts of high-noise activity
centers located near residential areas. Consistent. Refer to Noise Element Policies 1.1 and 1.3.
Policy 1.6
Require an acoustical study for
proposed developments in areas where
the existing and projected noise level
exceeds or would exceed the maximum
allowable levels identified in Table N-3.
The acoustical study shall be performed
in accordance with the requirements set
forth within this Noise Element.
Consistent. A noise analysis was conducted for the proposed
project and concluded that project-generated noise would not
exceed maximum allowable levels established by the City.
Goal 2: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy 2.1
Encourage noise-compatible land uses
along existing and future roadways,
highways, and freeways.
Consistent. The proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant is a compatible
use to be located adjacent to existing roadways and would not be
adversely impacted by vehicular traffic noise.
Policy 2.2
Encourage coordinated site planning
and traffic control measures that
minimize traffic noise in noise-sensitive
land use areas.
Consistent. Refer to Noise Element Policy 1.1. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure construction noise is
reduced to less than significant levels. Operational noise impacts
would be less than significant without mitigation; therefore, no
traffic control measures would be required.
Policy 2.3
Encourage the use of alternative
transportation modes such as walking,
bicycling, mass transit, and alternative
fuel vehicles to minimize traffic noise.
Consistent. The project is located near a variety of residential,
medical office, and commercial uses and would be easily walkable
and accessible to residents and employees of surrounding uses.
The project would include one electric vehicle charging station as
well as parking for 12 bicycles. Sidewalks are currently available
adjacent to the project site and would not be altered as a result of
the project. Two striped pathways from Main Street and Almond
Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would be constructed to allow
for pedestrian connectivity along the two adjacent roadways and
surrounding commercial and residential uses. Perimeter site
landscaping including shrubs and trees would improve the
pedestrian experience adjacent to the project site. The project
would also include a landmark feature as a large planter at the
northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to
promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
In addition, two OCTA bus stops are located less than 0.05-mile
from the project site.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-16 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Goal 7: Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and near noise-
sensitive land uses.
Policy 7.2
Require developers and contractors to
employ noise minimizing techniques
during construction and maintenance
operations.
Consistent. The project would comply with noise limits specified in
the Municipal Code. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 would further minimize impacts from construction
noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State
required noise attenuation devices; identifies permitted construction
haul routes to avoid noise-sensitive uses; and limits construction
activities to the allowable hours specified in Municipal Code Section
8.24.050.
Policy 7.3
Limit the hours of construction and
maintenance operations located
adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.
Consistent. Refer to Noise Element Policy 7.2.
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element
Goal 4: Identify and preserve archaeological and cultural resources.
Policy 4.1
Identify, designate, and protect
historically and culturally significant
archaeological resources or sites.
Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-
2 detailed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, would ensure any
cultural resources discovered during ground-disturbing activities on-
site are fully evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or
paleontologist and protected if found to be culturally significant.
Policy 4.3
Encourage curation of any cultural
resources and artifacts recovered in the
City for public education and
appreciation.
Consistent. The project would be required to implement Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 which require the applicant to retain a
qualified archaeologist and paleontologist in the event cultural
resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities. The
qualified professionals would evaluate the find and determine its
cultural significance. Curation of the resource is an option that may
be recommended by the qualified archaeologist and/or
paleontologist as part of the required course of action.
Infrastructure Element
Goal 1: Ensure water, sewer, and storm drain systems that meet the needs of residents and businesses.
Policy 1.1
Provide sufficient levels of water, sewer,
and storm drain service throughout the
community.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.18, the project would have a
less than significant impact on the City’s water, sewer, and storm
drain services. The project itself would also install new water and
sewer lines and an underground infiltration system to connect with
the City’s existing water, sewer, and storm drain systems in Main
Street and Almond Avenue.
Policy 1.3 Promote water conservation programs
aimed at reducing demands.
Consistent. The project would be designed such that it fully
conforms with the regulations for water efficiency identified in the
California Building Standards Code (California Code of
Regulations, Title 24), Part 5, California Plumbing Code; Part 11,
California Green Building Standards Code; and the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (California Code of Regulations,
Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7). The project would also be
subject to conformance with the City’s Water Conservation and
Water Supply Shortage Program, which enforces permanent water
reduction and landscape water efficiency measures per Municipal
Code Chapter 7.02.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-17 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 1.4
Explore environmentally efficient
infrastructure improvements such as the
use of reclaimed water, maximizing
percolation, and similar technologies.
Consistent. Refer to Land Use Element Policy 6.5. Additionally,
project development would result in a decrease in impervious areas
from 99.1 percent to 86.0 percent, a 13.1 percent reduction due to
increased pervious landscaping areas.
Policy 1.5
Investigate and carry out cost-effective
methods to reduce storm water
infiltration into the sewer system.
Consistent. Refer to Land Use Element Policy 6.5.
Policy 1.6
Require that new developments fund
fair-share costs associated with City
provision of water, sewer, and storm
drain service and are consistent with
City and service provider plans to
complete needed improvements and
funding capacity for such
improvements.
Consistent. The project would be subject to Municipal Code
Section 13.56.090, which imposes a sewer main connection fee
that assists in ensuring that sufficient sewer capacity is available
and that wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board are met. Additionally, the project would be
required to pay development impact fees to mitigate project
impacts on the City’s infrastructure services.
Goal 2: Reduce the amount of waste material entering regional landfills with an efficient and innovative waste
management program.
Policy 2.1 Provide sufficient levels of solid waste
service throughout the community.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.18, the project’s estimated
27.4 pounds per day of solid waste generation would represent less
than one percent of the combined maximum daily throughput of the
City’s three primary solid waste facilities (23,500 tons per day).
The project would also be subject to compliance with Municipal
Code Section 8.28, which details collection regulations and
mandatory recycling of construction and demolition waste. Project
impacts on solid waste services would be less than significant.
Goal 3: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights-of-way to enhance public safety and improve circulation.
Policy 3.6
Require that new developments fund
fair-share costs associated with City
provision of right-of-way maintenance
services and are consistent with City
and service provider plans to complete
needed improvements and funding
capacity for such improvements.
Consistent. The project would be subject to the City’s development
impact fees, which includes a Transportation System Improvement
Program fee collected for all land use types. Fair-share fees
collected would go towards the City’s funds for transportation
improvements.
Goal 4: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone and data services and cable television.
Policy 4.1
Continue to work with dry utility service
providers to ensure that the
community’s current and future needs
are met.
Consistent. The project’s dry utilities (electric, cable, telephone,
and gas) would connect to existing lines in West Almond Avenue
and would require coordination with utility providers to obtain
connection permits for services.
Policy 4.2 Continue to require utilities to be placed
underground for new development.
Consistent. All dry utility connections proposed would be placed
underground.
Economic Development Element
Goal 3: Strengthen the City’s economic base and stimulate employment through new commercial and industrial
development and expansion.
Policy 3.2
Encourage public and private sector
investments that promote commercial
development and expansion
opportunities.
Consistent. The proposed project is a private development that
would introduce revenue and job opportunities within the City. The
project would also allow an existing business, Chick-fil-A, to expand
its presence in the community by providing a secondary location in
Orange.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-18 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Goal 5: Improve economic viability of business districts through aesthetic enhancement, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and elimination of physical deterioration.
Policy 5.3
Improve the long-term economic
viability of Old Towne, South Main
Street, Katella Avenue, Uptown Orange,
The Outlets at Orange, and the Town
and Country Road area by introducing
mixed-use residential, commercial, and
office projects that are visually and
economically compatible with their
surroundings.
Consistent. Although the project is not mixed-use, the project
would revitalize the property from a vacant, former restaurant to a
new restaurant facility that would contribute towards the long-term
economic viability of South Main Street. As stated above, the
proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant and associated hardscape and
landscape improvements would be visually compatible with
adjacent uses. In an effort to improve the street presence of the
project, the project would include a landmark feature as a large
planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Policy 5.4
Redevelop and rehabilitate underutilized
and vacant lands and public rights-of-
way to stimulate development, and
consider conversion of vacant lands to
community amenities.
Consistent. Refer to Response to Economic Development Element
Policy 5.3. The proposed project would replace a closed restaurant
and deteriorated building with a new restaurant facility and
associated hardscape and landscape improvements. While the
project would involve rezoning the site from NMU-24 to C-2, which
would reduce the minimum FAR requirement, the proposed
development would redevelop and rehabilitate an underutilized site
from its current condition. As stated, the site is currently developed
with a deteriorated and non-operating restaurant structure, thus,
providing limited to no utility in its current condition. The proposed
development would still meet most of the NMU-24 zone special
design requirements for drive-thru restaurants, including, but not
limited to, placing the drive thru lane away from circulation routes,
parking areas and pedestrian walkways, and not adjacent to
streets; width of the drive thru lanes; provision of a queueing
analysis to demonstrate adequate site operations; providing
adequate distance from the site driveway and drive thru entrance;
providing adequate distance from the drive thru entrance and menu
board; menu board and loud speaker operation; enhanced
pedestrian walkways; and adequate safety. Overall, the project
would be consistent with the NMU-24 zone with the exception of
the minimum FAR requirement and several special design
requirements related to street-oriented development; refer to
Response to Urban Design Element Policies 1.5 and 2.1, below.
Goal 6: Provide sufficient infrastructure to support anticipated economic development and growth.
Policy 6.1
Provide and maintain infrastructure
adequate to support growth and
expansion of commercial, industrial, and
institutional areas, including water,
sewer, streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, storm drains, access, and
parking improvements.
Consistent. Refer to Infrastructure Element Policy 1.1. Curb and
gutter improvements are also proposed off-site along the eastern
portion of the project site along South Main Street and the project
would provide 48 vehicle parking spaces, motorcycle parking, and
an area for bicycle parking for patrons.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-19 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Public Safety Element
Goal 1: Protect residents and businesses from seismic hazards and other geologic constraints.
Policy 1.1
Minimize the potential loss of life and
damage to structures that may result
from an earthquake.
Consistent. The project would be subject to compliance with
applicable seismic-related design requirements under the California
Building Code (CBC) and recommended actions from the project’s
Geotechnical Investigation, which would be incorporated as
conditions to the project’s building permit. Compliance with the
CBC and Geotechnical Investigation would minimize potential
impacts associated with earthquakes.
Goal 2: Protect the City from flood-related risks and hazards.
Policy 2.4
Employ strategies and design features
that will reduce the amount of
impervious surface (i.e. paved area)
within new development projects.
Consistent. The project would result in a decrease in impervious
areas from 99.1 percent to 86.0 percent, a 13.1 percent reduction
due to increased pervious landscaping areas.
Goal 3: Protect lives and property of Orange residents and businesses from urban and wildland fire hazards.
Policy 3.4
Provide adequate fire equipment access
and fire suppression resources to all
developed and open space areas.
Consistent. The City of Orange Fire Department currently provides
fire protection services to the project site. The project would be
subject to City site/building plan review to ensure that the project
meets fire safety requirements. The proposed project would also
include features such as fire-resistant construction materials, fire
alarm/sprinkler systems, and hydrants. Additionally, the project
would provide adequate emergency access for fire vehicles with
access via Main Street; refer to Exhibit 4.14-1, Fire Access. As
such, project implementation would not adversely impact the City’s
response time and service standards.
Policy 3.5
Establish and maintain optimal
emergency response times for fire
safety. Require new development to
ensure that City response time and
service standards are maintained.
Consistent. Refer to Public Safety Element Policy 3.4.
Goal 4: Minimize risks to life, property, and the environment associated with producing, using, storing, or transporting hazardous materials.
Policy 4.2
Prohibit new disposal, transport,
manufacture, and storage of hazardous
materials within the City without a
mitigation plan in case of accidents.
Hospitals meeting current state and
federal standards are exempt.
Consistent. Substantial risks associated with hazardous materials
are not typically associated with restaurant uses. Minor cleaning
products and the occasional use of pesticides and herbicides for
landscape maintenance are the general extent of hazardous
materials that would be routinely utilized on-site. Additionally,
limited amounts of hazardous materials would be utilized during
construction of the project. However, all routine disposal, transport,
use, and storage of hazardous materials would be required to
adhere to State and local standard and regulations.
Goal 7: Improve community safety and reduce opportunities for criminal activity.
Policy 7.2
Promote and integrate crime-preventive
characteristics and design features into
all phases of the planning and
development process.
Consistent. The proposed project plans would be reviewed by the
Orange Police Department during the plan check process to ensure
the project provides adequate safety and crime-preventative
design, as needed.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-20 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 7.3
Maximize natural surveillance through
physical design features, including, but
not limited to, visible entryways from
surrounding structures and businesses;
well defined and visible walkways and
gates; well-lighted driveways, walkways,
and exteriors; and landscaping that
preserves or enhances visibility.
Consistent. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, the restaurant building would
be located in the southern portion of the site with the remaining
area developed as surface parking and a drive-thru pathway. The
parking lot would be well defined with lighting and pedestrian
walkway striping. Landscaping along the site perimeter would
consist of shrubs to screen the parking area from public streets
without reducing visibility. Additionally, the restaurant building
would have adequate interior and exterior lighting with large
windows facing the parking lot that enable employees and patrons
to observe parking lot activity.
Policy 7.6
Continue to involve the Orange Police
Department in the project design and
review process.
Consistent. Refer to Public Safety Element Policy 7.2.
Goal 9: Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle environments.
Policy 9.1
Enhance and maintain safe pedestrian
and bicycle movement through the
integration of traffic control devices,
crosswalks, and pedestrian-oriented
lighting, into the design of streets,
sidewalks, trails, and school routes
throughout Orange.
Consistent. The parking lot would be well defined with lighting and
two striped pedestrian walkways from Main Street and Almond
Avenue to the Chick-fil-A restaurant would provide pedestrian
connectivity from the two adjacent roadways and surrounding
commercial and residential uses. Additionally, parking storage for
12 bicycles would be provided at the front of the restaurant building
for a safe and convenient location. Landscaping along the site
perimeter and existing sidewalks would also be implemented to
provide a buffer and clear line of sight for pedestrians and bicyclists
to safely cross the site’s two driveways along Almond Avenue and
Main Street.
Urban Design Element
Goal 1: Promote streetscapes that enhance the economic vitality and overall visual quality of commercial corridors,
support the circulation network, and support pedestrian-scale streets and patterns of activity.
Policy 1.5
Emphasize street-oriented
development, with parking located
behind or next to buildings rather than in
front. Encourage commercial activities
such as sidewalk and outdoor dining.
Inconsistent. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, the Chick-fil-A building
would be located in the southern portion of the site with parking
located in front of the building adjacent to Almond Avenue and
Main Street. Two striped pedestrian pathways would connect the
restaurant building to Main Street and Almond Avenue and
surrounding commercial and residential uses. Landscaping would
be provided along the perimeter of the property and contribute
towards the visual and spatial experience of drivers, transit riders,
and pedestrians. In an effort to improve the street presence of the
project, the project would include a landmark feature as a large
planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Although the operational requirements of the restaurant would not
allow for placement of the building in a manner that emphasizes
street-oriented development, it would allow the drive-thru lanes to
wrap around the western and southern site perimeter, ensuring the
lanes would not obstruct circulation routes for access, parking, and
pedestrian walkways. Additionally, the location of the drive-thru
lanes would provide the storage necessary to accommodate
anticipated drive through operations throughout the day within the
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-21 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
drive-thru lanes and provide a substantial separation between
queuing cars and the sidewalk. However, as the project would still
place parking in front of the restaurant building, it would be
inconsistent with Urban Design Element Policy 1.5.
Goal 2: Create commercial and mixed-use areas of varying scale and function that are visually distinct and
complement the City’s identity.
Policy 2.1
Transform corridors such as Chapman
Avenue, Main Street, The City Drive,
and Katella Avenue into active,
pedestrian-friendly streets that balance
auto, transit, and pedestrian mobility.
These streets should accommodate
compact development that is oriented to
the sidewalks to promote active street
life.
Inconsistent. As the site is comprised of 0.95-acres and the project
proposes a fast food facility, the project’s contribution to the
transformation of Main Street into an active, multimodal corridor
would be limited. However, employees and residents of residential,
medical office, and commercial uses nearby would be able to
conveniently walk to the site for lunch or dinner. Additionally, the
project would develop two pedestrian walkways from Main Street
(43 feet in length) and Almond Avenue (83 feet in length) to the
restaurant building and install bicycle racks on-site to connect to
the adjacent sidewalks and OCTA transit stops. Landscaping
would be provided along the perimeter of the property and
contribute towards the visual and spatial experience of drivers,
transit riders, and pedestrians. In an effort to enhance the project’s
street presence, the project would include a landmark feature as a
large planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Compared to the site’s existing condition as a vacant restaurant
building, the project would better promote active street life along
Main Street and the general site vicinity. However, the proposed
General Plan Amendment would reduce the site’s minimum FAR
and would not accommodate compact development oriented to the
sidewalks, as discussed under Urban Design Element Policy 1.5.
Therefore, the project would also be inconsistent with this policy.
Policy 2.2
Provide convenient pedestrian and
transit access throughout commercial
and mixed-use corridors, including an
interconnected network of high-amenity
streetscapes, attractive and comfortable
transit stops, and multiple walkways that
connect activities and uses.
Consistent. The project would develop two pedestrian walkways
from Main Street (43 feet in length) and Almond Avenue (83 feet in
length) to the restaurant building and install bicycle racks on-site to
connect to the adjacent sidewalks and OCTA transit stops. The
OCTA bus stop along Main Street adjacent to the site would be
relocated approximately 100 feet to the south but would continue to
provide transit services along Main Street. Additionally,
landscaping would be provided along the perimeter of the property
to connect with existing greenways along Almond Avenue and Main
Street and contribute towards the visual and spatial experience of
drivers, transit riders, and pedestrians. In an effort to enhance the
project’s street presence, the project would also include a landmark
feature as a large planter at the northeast corner of the site with
‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote community identity and provide
a streetscape enhancement at the project intersection.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-22 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
Policy 2.3
Improve the appearance of arterials and
corridors that pass through commercial
and mixed-use areas. Use street trees
and other landscape and hardscape
improvements to improve the visual and
spatial experience of drivers, transit
riders, and pedestrians using City
streets.
Consistent. Refer to Urban Design Element Policy 2.2.
Goal 3: Express the City’s distinct community identity and sense of place through improvements to the appearance of new development and commercial and mixed-use corridors.
Policy 3.1
Promote community identity through
streetscape enhancements, building
designs, and treatments marking the
primary entrances to the City.
Consistent. The project would include a landmark feature as a
large planter at the northeast corner of the site with ‘City of Orange’
lettering to promote community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond Avenue intersection.
Goal 4: Establish and reinforce district and neighborhood characteristics recognized both within the community and throughout the region.
Policy 4.1
Establish appropriate transitions
between commercial, industrial, higher
density residential, mixed-use
development, and lower density
residential areas.
Consistent. The project site is located in the northernmost NMU-24
designated area along Main Street and is directly adjacent to a GC
designated commercial corridor along Chapman Avenue. While the
project’s proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
would redesignate and rezone the site from mixed-use to
commercial, the project would still meet many of the NMU-24 and
NMIX zone development standards, thereby contributing towards
establishing an appropriate transition between mixed-use and
commercial developments in the site vicinity.
Policy 4.2
Encourage the use of creative
landscape designs to visually define
districts and reduce conflicts between
residential and commercial land uses.
Consistent. The project site does not abut residential uses.
However, trees and shrubs would be planted along Almond Avenue
and Main Street and along the western and southern perimeters
adjacent to the existing concrete masonry unit walls. The
greenways proposed along Almond Avenue would connect to
existing landscaped sidewalks to the west adjacent to single- and
multi-family residential neighborhoods to minimize land use
conflicts between the existing residences and proposed commercial
use. Landscaping would also be provided within the parking areas,
on berms, and surrounding the proposed restaurant structure; refer
to Exhibit 2-3.
Goal 6: Encourage contextually appropriate infill development projects and property renovations.
Policy 6.1
Encourage consistent high quality
design of development projects, and
provide development standards that
ensure building and site design that is
well integrated with infrastructure and
circulation systems.
Consistent. The project proposes to change the site’s existing
zoning from NMU-24 to C-2. Upon approval, the project’s
maximum building height, minimum setbacks, signage,
landscaping, and other development characteristics would be
required to comply with the development regulations detailed in
Municipal Code Chapter 17.18, Commercial Districts, for C-2 zone,
and would be consistent with the City of Orange zoning regulations
for the C-2 zone and the Southwest Project Area Design
Standards; refer to Tables 4.10-3 and 4.10-4.
Policy 6.2
Ensure that new infill development
contributes positively to the quality of
the surrounding corridor or
neighborhood, including the potential to
Consistent. The proposed infill development would contribute
positively to the quality of the surrounding neighborhood by
replacing a vacant, deteriorated building with a restaurant and
associated landscape and hardscape improvements. The project
would be consistent with the developed nature of the area and
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-23 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
provide additional park space, and
minimize the visibility of on-site parking.
would integrate into the existing visual character of the surrounding
vicinity, which includes other single-story commercial and office
buildings. The proposed restaurant would also provide a place for
nearby residents and workers to get lunch or dinner within walking
distance to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and office uses.
The project would reduce the number of parking spaces on-site
form 70 to 48 spaces and would minimize the visibility of on-site
parking, by planting trees and shrubs along the site perimeter.
Further, the project’s on-site transportation circulation plan required
under Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would prevent drive-thru queuing
on-site and onto Almond Avenue by requiring Chick-fil-A staff to
monitor queues and to go out to the drive-thru lanes to take orders
with hand held ordering and payment devices to increase ordering
efficiencies and reduce queue lengths. The drive-thru would
provide stacking for up to 17 vehicles from the entry to the pick-up
window with additional on-site overflow space as needed. Should
the vehicle queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Mitigation Measure
TRA-1 would ensure Chick-fil-A staff direct customers to utilize the
Main Street access to enter the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A
management would also be required to direct staff to park in the
stalls closest to the drive-thru entrance along Almond Avenue. This
would allow stacking, if needed.
Policy 6.4
Promote the renovation and upgrading
of older commercial developments to
create more attractive and functional
retail environments.
Consistent. The former restaurant building on-site was constructed
in the early 1960s and is currently vacant and deteriorated. The
project would demolish and redevelop the site with a more
architecturally attractive building consistent with the proposed C-2
zoning development standards. Landscaping would also be
provided along the site perimeter to create a more attractive
commercial use. For example, the site perimeter would be planted
with trees and shrubs connecting to the adjacent greenways along
the existing sidewalks; trees, shrubs, and vines would be planted
within the interior of the site along drive aisles and surrounding the
restaurant building; and a large planter with ‘City of Orange’
lettering would be installed in the northeast corner of the site as a
landmark feature to give the project more street presence and
community identity at the Main Street and Almond Avenue
intersection. Additionally, as stated above, the project’s on-site
transportation circulation plan would ensure the drive-thru lane
queues function appropriately and do not adversely impact on- or
off-site circulation flow with implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-1.
Policy 6.5
Provide logical transitions between
higher intensity development within the
City’s established commercial, office,
and institutional corridors and nearby
single-family neighborhoods. Scale,
massing, and the location of services
within these corridors should respond
sensitively to adjacent residential uses.
Consistent. The nearest residential uses to the project site are
single-family residences to the northwest across Almond Avenue
and multifamily residences to the west of the existing preschool that
abuts the site. Other surrounding uses in the area include medical
and professional office buildings. The proposed Chick-fil-A
restaurant is not considered high intensity development and would
be compatible with nearby residential, medical, and office buildings
nearby. The restaurant building would be located in the southern
portion of the site, closest to the three-story medical office building
to the south in a way that would consolidate building structures in
closer vicinity. At the same time, the single-story restaurant
building would be compatible with the adjacent single-story
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-1, continued
City of Orange 4.10-24 August 2019
Policy # Policy Determination of Consistency
preschool abutting the site to the west, both with surface parking
lots along the street frontage. Overall, the uses near the Almond
Avenue and Main Street intersection are a mix of commercial,
office, and residential; therefore, the project would be consistent
with nearby uses and provide a logical transition between the
higher intensity medical office uses and lower intensity residential
and office uses.
HOUSING ELEMENT
SCAG is responsible for allocating housing needs to each jurisdiction in its region. According to
the General Plan, a local jurisdictions’ fair-share of regional housing need (referred to as Regional
Housing Needs Assessment [RHNA]) is the number of additional housing units that will need to
be constructed in the jurisdiction in order to accommodate the forecast growth in the number of
households, to replace expected demolitions and conversion of housing units to non-housing
units, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing
market. Table 4.10-2, Fair Share Housing Needs Allocation (2014-2021), identifies the City’s fair
share housing needs allocation for 2014-2021.
Table 4.10-2
Fair Share Housing Needs Allocation (2014-2021)
Income
Category
Very-Low
Income1 Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Total
Construction
Needed
Number of Units 83 59 66 155 363
1. Regional share of Extremely Low-Income units is 42 dwelling units (assumed 50% of the Very Low-Income units)
Source: City of Orange, 2014-2021 Housing Element, adopted January 14, 2014.
The Housing Element assumes the following densities to accommodate construction that would
be affordable to specific income levels by the State:
• Very Low- and Low-Income: 30 dwelling units per acre minimum
• Moderate-Income: 11-30 dwelling units per acre minimum
• Above Moderate-Income: Up to 11 dwelling units per acre
State Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv) allows jurisdictions in metropolitan counties,
such as Orange, to include sites with a minimum density of 30 units per acre and large enough to
accommodate 16 dwelling units per site as appropriate sites to accommodate the jurisdictions’
Lower Income households. The General Plan includes five mixed-use land use designations. The
Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) designation is the only land use designation with a minimum density of
30 dwelling units per acre.
The project site is designated NMIX allowing for a maximum of 24 units per acre. Thus, under
the existing land use designation, the site is not identified by the Housing Element as a site
suitable to accommodate Lower Income units; however, it would accommodate Moderate-Income
units. Under the NMIX designation and maximum density of 24 units per acre, the 0.95-acre site
would be able to accommodate 22 units. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.10-25 August 2019
change the project site’s designation from NMIX to CG and a Zone Change from NMU-24 to C-2.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would remove the potential for the
site to be developed with a mixed-use development of up to 22 dwelling units.
The Housing Element indicates the City is able to meet its RHNA allocation through residential
projects “in the pipeline” (3,362 units)1 and that vacant land and parcels with potential to be
redeveloped with residential uses would provide additional opportunities for new housing units in
Orange. According to Housing Element Table B-11, the City has a total capacity of 5,702 units,
which exceeds the 2014-2021 RHNA need of 363 units by 5,339 units. Although the project would
result in the conversion of land designated for mixed-use development to a non-residential land
use designation, adequate land would be available for additional housing development to meet
the City’s RHNA need.
ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
Based on the City of Orange Zoning Map and as stated above, the project site is zoned NMU-
24.2 The NMU-24 zone allows for drive-thru restaurants; however, based on the City’s goal to
establish a pedestrian-oriented environment given the transit and pedestrian activity on Main
Street, the zoning establishes special design requirements for fast food restaurants in the NMU-
24 zone. These include, but are not limited to, placement of the drive thru lanes away from
circulation routes necessary to access the property, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways;
drive thru lanes not located adjacent to streets; buildings oriented towards the street with
pedestrian connections to adjacent sidewalks and parking not allowed between the building and
front property line; width and radius of the drive thru lane; distance of the drive thru from driveways
and from the entrance of the drive thru to the menu board; separation of the drive thru lane by
curbing and landscaping; placement and emphasis of pedestrian walkways; and loudspeaker
system and menu board requirements.
The project would be consistent with several of the special design requirements including, but not
limited to, placing the drive thru lane away from circulation routes, parking areas and pedestrian
walkways, and not adjacent to streets; width of the drive thru lanes; provision of a queueing
analysis to demonstrate adequate site operations; providing adequate distance from the site
driveway and drive thru entrance; providing adequate distance from the drive thru entrance and
menu board; menu board and loud speaker operation; enhanced pedestrian walkways; and
adequate safety. To create a more pedestrian-oriented environment as envisioned with the NMU-
24 zone, the project would develop two pedestrian walkways from Main Street (43 feet in length)
and Almond Avenue (83 feet in length) to the restaurant building and install bicycle racks on-site
to connect to the adjacent sidewalks and OCTA transit stops. Landscaping is also proposed
along the site perimeter and along the existing sidewalks to create a more aesthetically appealing
and spatial experience for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling within the site vicinity.
Although the project would comply with many of the special design requirements for fast food
restaurants in the MNU-24 zone, the operational needs of the proposed Chick-fil-A are not in
complete alignment with either the General Plan or zoning requirements for the site including
placement of the building toward the street and parking areas between the building and front
1 City of Orange, City of Orange 2014-2021 Housing Element, Table B-3, adopted January 14, 2014.
2 City of Orange, City of Orange Zoning Map, March 16, 2016, https://www.cityoforange.org/Document
Center/View/626/Citywide-Zoning-Map-PDF, accessed May 24, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.10-26 August 2019
property line. Thus, the project proposes a Zone Change to revert to the site’s previous zoning
of C-2, which allows a broad range of commercial uses.
Based on the C-2 zoning, the project would be required to comply with development regulations
detailed in the City of Orange Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 17.18, Commercial
Districts. Development standards applicable to the proposed project are discussed below in Table
4.10-3, City of Orange Zoning Code Consistency Analysis.
Table 4.10-3
City of Orange Zoning Code Consistency Analysis
Development
Standard
General Business (C-2) Zoning
Requirement Proposed Project
Does Project
Satisfy
Requirement?
Permitted Uses
Restaurants w/ drive-thru or take out
window requires a Conditional Use
Permit subject to special provisions in
Municipal Code Section 17.18.070
(see Drive-Thru Windows, below).
Conditional Use Permit No. 3044-17 is
requested as part of the proposed project to
comply with C-2 zoning.
Yes
Maximum
Intensity 1.0 Floor to Area Ratio 0.11 Floor to Area Ratio Yes
Maximum
Building Height
32 feet / two stories within 120 feet of
a residential district
30 feet / two stories at all other
locations
22 feet / one story Yes
Minimum
Setbacks
Front Yard: 10 feet 68 feet (from Main Street) Yes
Side Yard: 10 feet 83 feet and 3 inches (from Almond Avenue) Yes
Rear Yard: 0 feet 18 feet and 3 inches Yes
Drive-Thru
Windows
Drive-thru lanes shall not obstruct the
circulation routes necessary for access
to the property, parking areas
(including backup area of parking
spaces), and pedestrian walkways.
Access to the drive-thru lanes would be
provided via the site entrance along Almond
Avenue to the north and would exit along Main
Street at the southeast corner of the site. The
drive-thru lanes would wrap around the
western and southern site perimeter and would
not obstruct circulation routes for access,
parking, and pedestrian walkways.
Yes
Pedestrian walkways shall be
emphasized by enriched paved or
striping.
The preliminary landscape plan includes
striping along pedestrian walkways. Yes
Drive-thru lanes shall be a minimum of
12 feet in width.
The two proposed drive-thru lanes would be
12 feet wide and would merge into one 12-foot
wide lane.
Yes
Any application for a drive-thru window
shall include a parking or queuing
study that is based on similar
operations, addressing the anticipated
traffic volumes and vehicular stacking
needs of the proposed business.
As detailed in Section 4.16,
Transportation/Traffic, a drive-thru lane
queuing assessment was conducted based on
sample surveys collected at five other Chick-
fil-A locations in Orange County. Based on
the sample surveys, it was concluded that the
project’s drive-thru storage for up to 17
vehicles would accommodate anticipated
drive-thru operations throughout the day; refer
to Appendix 8.7, Traffic Impact Analysis and
Circulation Plan.
Yes
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-3, continued
City of Orange 4.10-27 August 2019
Development Standard General Business (C-2) Zoning Requirement Proposed Project
Does Project
Satisfy Requirement?
During the initial staff review, the City’s
Police Department shall review and
approve the proposed drive-thru
configuration to assure that public
safety and security issues are
adequately addressed.
As part of the site plan review process, the
Orange Police Department would review the
proposed site plan for public safety,
emergency access, and security issues.
Yes
Division Wall
Required
A masonry division wall shall be
constructed on all property lines
adjacent to any residential district.
The division wall shall be six feet in
height, as measured from the highest
elevation of land contiguous to the
wall, except in a required front yard, in
a required exterior side yard for a
corner, reverse corner or key lot,
where the wall shall be limited to 42
inches in height.
No residential districts are located adjacent to
the project site. However, existing concrete
masonry unit walls are located along the site’s
southern and western boundary and separates
the project from existing medical offices and a
preschool to the south and west, respectively.
The walls would remain unchanged at project
completion.
Yes
Off-Street
Parking
(vehicles)
10 spaces/1,000 square feet gross
floor area for first 4,000 square feet,
then 14.2 spaces/1,000 square feet
gross floor area above 4,000 square
feet
The total building area is 4,563 square feet;
thus, 48 parking spaces would be required.
The project proposes 48 parking spaces,
including one electric vehicle space and two
ADA-compliant spaces.
Yes
Off-Street
Parking
(motorcycle/bic
ycle)
When 10 to 50 automobile spaces are
required, 50 square feet of motorcycle
parking area and one bicycle rack
A 90-square foot motorcycle parking area and
one bicycle rack would be provided on-site. Yes
Off-Street
Parking
(parking area
dimensions)
Minimum 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep
Where an open parking stall is
adjacent to a wall, a 10-foot width is
required
Each parking space would be 9 feet wide and
18 feet deep.
No parking spots are proposed adjacent to
walls.
Yes
Loading Areas
When 10 to 50 automobile spaces are
required, a loading area 10 feet wide
and 40 feet deep is required.
A 10-foot by 40-foot loading zone would be
provided on-site. Yes
Landscaping
Setback Areas
Landscape the front yards of all
buildings facing a street, entire setback
area or ten feet minimum planter
width, whichever is greater.
Landscaping is proposed along the front and
side yards of the restaurant building facing
Almond Avenue and Main Street, along the
site perimeter, and within the parking areas.
The project would also include a landmark
feature as a large planter at the northeast
corner of the site.
Yes
Parking
Landscaping
All parking visible from public streets is
required to be screened with five-
gallon shrubs at three feet on center.
Berms of three feet may be used if the
landscape area is 20 feet wide or
greater.
Shrubs and trees are proposed along the site
perimeter along Almond Avenue and Main
Street, within the parking area, and on parking
lot berms.
Yes
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-3, continued
City of Orange 4.10-28 August 2019
Development Standard General Business (C-2) Zoning Requirement Proposed Project
Does Project
Satisfy Requirement?
Trash
Enclosure
Landscaping
A minimum four-foot wide landscaped
planter, clean inside dimension, shall
be provided on at least two sides of all
trash enclosures.
The trash enclosure located on the western
end of the proposed restaurant facility would
have tree and shrub landscaping on the
western and southern ends (two sides).
Yes
On-site
Landscaping
Trees are required throughout the
project site within all parking areas and
along all property lines, including side
yards and backyards, where buildings
are away from the property line. They
need to be located randomly
throughout the project site unless
determined otherwise through site plan
and design review. Larger tree
specimens are encouraged to be used
along the property’s street frontage.
Shrubs are encouraged throughout the
project site within all parking areas,
setbacks and around building
footprints.
Trees and shrubs would be planted along
Almond Avenue and Main Street and along the
western and southern perimeters adjacent to
the existing concrete masonry unit walls.
Landscaping would also be provided within the
parking areas, on berms, and surrounding the
proposed restaurant structure. The project
would also include a landmark feature as a
large planter at the northeast corner of the site
with ‘City of Orange’ lettering to promote
community identity and provide a streetscape
enhancement at the Main Street and Almond
Avenue intersection.
Yes
Mechanical
Equipment
All mechanical and air conditioning
equipment shall be shielded and
screened from view from adjacent
streets and properties. The screening
shall be integrated architecturally with
the building. Ground-mounted
equipment screening shall consist of a
solid wall, solid fence, or sufficient
landscaping. Otherwise, such
equipment shall be enclosed in a
building.
Exterior mechanical equipment would include
an electrical transformer and the heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units.
As indicated on Exhibit 2-3, Site Plan, the
proposed transformer would be screened with
ornamental landscaping. The HVAC units
would be situated on the roof and would be
screened via a parapet around all four sides of
the building.
Yes
Trash
Enclosure
All commercial developments shall
provide trash collection areas
adequately and conveniently placed
throughout the development. Trash
collection areas shall be screened
from view on three sides by a six-foot-
high masonry wall in accordance with
Department of Public Works
standards. A view obscuring self-
latching gate shall be provided.
Trash cans would be conveniently placed
within and outside the restaurant. The main
trash enclosure with storage area would be
located at the western end of the restaurant
facility and would have two view obscuring
self-latching gates. The trash enclosure with
storage area would be screened from view on
three sides by a six-foot masonry wall.
Yes
Signs
All signs shall comply with the
requirements outlined in Municipal
Code Chapter 17.36, Sign
Regulations.
As part of the site plan review process, the
City of Orange Planning Division would review
all proposed signs for compliance with
Municipal Code standards.
Yes
Source: City of Orange, City of Orange Municipal Code, amended January 30, 2018, Chapter 17.18, Commercial District.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.10-29 August 2019
As discussed in Table 4.10-3, with approval of the proposed Zone Change and Conditional Use
Permit, the proposed project would be consistent with the development regulations for C-2 zoning.
Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant.
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Per Municipal Code 17.18.240, Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, the project site located
within the Southwest Project Area and is subject to compliance with the City of Orange
Redevelopment Agency’s Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area
(Southwest Design Standards), adopted June 1988 and most recently amended in 2018. The
Southwest Project Area encompasses approximately 458 acres in central Orange and is divided
into the following three thematic districts: the State College, West Chapman, and South Main/La
Veta Thematic Districts. The project site is located in the South Main/La Veta Thematic District,
which has an urban contemporary theme.3 The Southwest Design Standards include general
design standards applicable to all development within the Southwest Project Area and specific
standards for each thematic district. Table 4.10-4, Southwest Project Area Design Standards
Consistency Analysis, analyzes the proposed project features to determine consistency with
applicable Southwest Design Standards.
Table 4.10-4
Southwest Project Area Design Standards Consistency Analysis
Category
Southwest Project Area
Design Standard Proposed Project
Is the Project
Consistent?
General Design Standards
Small Scale
Buildings
Use Distinctive Massing The project would be designed with various
architectural building elements at a
maximum height of approximately 22 feet,
including a brick veneer, dark bronze
parapets, awnings and other metal storefront
features, and “Powerwall White” stucco with
a sand medium finish, along with restaurant
identification signage; refer to Exhibits 2-5a
and 2-5b.
Yes
Use Intimate Scale Windows, doors, and decorative trim outside
the proposed building, including brick
veneer, dark bronze parapets, and awnings
would emphasize intimate and pedestrian
scale.
Yes
Limit Visual Impression of Height The project building would have a maximum
building height of 22 feet, consistent with the
proposed C-2 zoning.
Yes
Design for Public View The proposed building would be designed for
public view with landscaping and screening
along the site and building perimeters and
throughout the parking area. Trash
collection would also be screened from
public view.
Yes
3 City of Orange Redevelopment Agency, Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area,
June 1988, amended September 10, 2013 and March 13, 2018, https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/
View/6694/Southwest-Design-Standards---Amended-March-13-2018-1-of-65-PDF, accessed June 20, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-4, continued
City of Orange 4.10-30 August 2019
Category
Southwest Project Area
Design Standard Proposed Project
Is the Project
Consistent?
Use Varied Textures The proposed building would utilize varied
textures, including brick, metal, and stucco.
Yes
Use Related Colors The building would feature related colors,
such as brick, bronze, metal, and sand.
Yes
Service
Systems
Screen Mechanical Equipment Exterior mechanical equipment would
include an electrical transformer and the
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) units. As indicated on Exhibit 2-3,
Site Plan, the proposed transformer would
be screened with ornamental landscaping.
The HVAC units would be situated on the
roof and would be screened via a parapet
around all four sides of the building.
Yes
Screen Trash Enclosures Trash collection on-site would be located
within a trash enclosure/storage area
adjacent to the proposed building. The trash
enclosure would be gated and screened with
landscaping.
Yes
Underground or Screen Utility Lines and
Equipment
All dry utilities, including electric, cable,
telephone, and gas, would be underground
on-site and connect to existing lines in West
Almond Avenue.
Yes
Parking/Access Design Parking Areas Appropriately The proposed parking area would be typical
of a drive-thru restaurant. Landscaping is
proposed on parking berms and throughout
the parking area. A pedestrian walkway
would also be installed to provide safe
access between the parking lot and the
restaurant building.
Yes
Signage Comply with City of Orange Sign
Ordinance
The design of the proposed Chick-fil-A
restaurant sign would comply with the City’s
Sign Ordinance requirements per Municipal
Code Chapter 17.36, Sign Regulations, and
be verified during the Design Review
process.
Yes
South Main/La Veta Thematic District Design Standards
Architectural
Design
Mass and scale of new or remodeled
buildings shall be consistent with relevant
buildings in the project area
As stated above, the proposed building
would be designed with various architectural
building elements at a maximum height of
approximately 22 feet, including a brick
veneer, dark bronze parapets, awnings and
other metal storefront features, and
“Powerwall White” stucco with a sand
medium finish, along with restaurant
identification signage. Adjacent buildings in
the project area include medical office
buildings and single-family residences to the
north, commercial buildings to the east,
medical office buildings to the south, and a
pre-school and multifamily residences to the
Yes
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-4, continued
City of Orange 4.10-31 August 2019
Category
Southwest Project Area
Design Standard Proposed Project
Is the Project
Consistent?
west. The buildings range in height from
one- to two-stories and the proposed building
would be consistent with these adjacent
buildings.
Buildings of large mass should be
designed to avoid a box-like appearance
The proposed building would include
parapets, awnings, and metal storefront
features as well as varied building materials
and colors.
Yes
Rhythm and scale of building
components shall be consistent with
relevant buildings in the project area
The proposed architectural elements would
have a contemporary urban design and be
consistent with relevant buildings in the
project area.
Yes
Texture and building facades, roof
treatment, and colors shall be compatible
with adjacent structures
As stated, the proposed project would reflect
contemporary styling with brick veneer,
bronze parapets, awnings, metal features,
and varied building materials and accent
colors to provide intimate pedestrian scale.
Yes
Appropriate building materials:
• Concrete, plaster, stucco building
walls
• Smooth finished wood as accents or
wall surfacing
• Brick, terra cotta, or cut/carved stone
as accent
• Concrete, slate or clay roof tiles
• Concrete, plaster, wrought iron, brick,
or cut/carved stone for fences, walls,
and gates
• Avoid reflective/tinted glass or rough
sawn “natural” wood
• Avoid corrugated metal/plastic,
shingles, or white-colored roofing
• Avoid chain-link fences, rough sawn
wood, and untextured blocks for
fences, walls, and gates
The proposed building would be constructed
with brick veneer, bronze parapets, awnings
and other metal storefront features, and
“Powerwall White” stucco with a sand
medium finish. No reflective/tinted glass,
natural wood would be used. No chain-link
fences, rough sawn wood, or untextured
blocks for fences, walls, and gates would be
utilized, and no corrugated metal/plastic,
shingles, or white-colored roofing would be
implemented.
Yes
Landscape
Design
Standards
Private Improvements:
• Parking areas shall be screened from
street frontages with a 10-foot
landscaped area with a maximum 42-
inch height on plant materials or other
features (exclusive of trees)
• Planting islands are required on either
side of access driveways. Other
features encouraged and/or allowed
for access driveways include special
paving and planted medians within
the driveway.
• Fully automatic low-volume irrigation
design and equipment shall be
Landscaped areas of approximately 10.6 feet
are proposed between the parking area and
adjacent streets, Almond Avenue and Main
Street. Plants proposed along the street
frontages include upright rosemary, fountain
grass, and agave shrubs lower than the
maximum 42-inch plant height requirement.
Strawberry trees are also proposed along the
site perimeter.
Planting islands consisting of agave and
Marie’s fescue shrubs and holly oaks are
proposed on either side of the two access
driveways along Main Street and Almond
Avenue.
Yes
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.10-4, continued
City of Orange 4.10-32 August 2019
Category
Southwest Project Area
Design Standard Proposed Project
Is the Project
Consistent?
provided for all planted areas within
an individual development site.
All plantings would be irrigated with bubblers
and/or drip emitters connected to automatic
remote control valves and tied into an
automatic smart irrigation controller.
Source: City of Orange Redevelopment Agency, Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project Area, June 1988,
amended September 10, 2013 and March 13, 2018, https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/6694/Southwest-Design-
Standards---Amended-March-13-2018-1-of-65-PDF, accessed June 20, 2018.
As detailed above in Table 4.10-4, the proposed project would be consistent with the Southwest
Design Standards and would be verified through the City’s site plan and design review process.
Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
SENATE BILL 18 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
As stated above, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and is therefore subject to
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requirements. On May 28, 2018, a letter was sent to the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a Sacred Lands File search and a current SB 18 contact
list for the vicinity of the proposed project. NAHC provided a response letter dated May 30, 2018
stating that the Sacred Lands File search resulted in negative results. The NAHC further
recommended 18 tribal contacts representing tribal organizations be consulted about the project
under SB 18. In compliance with SB 18, the City of Orange distributed tribal consultation letters
on June 13, 2018. The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians indicated that the project site has little
cultural significance or ties to the Viejas Indians. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation responded to the City’s request for consultation and requested consultation pursuant to
AB 52 in any ground disturbance conducted as part of the project; refer to Section 4.17, Tribal
Cultural Resources. To date, no additional responses under SB 18 have been received.
Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would be consistent with the project site’s
General Plan designation and zoning requirements upon approval of the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change and relevant General Plan policies with the exception of two
policies pertaining to building placement and compact development. Additionally, the project
would comply with the Southwest Design Standards and SB 18 requirements for tribal
consultation. Overall, the project would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. Impacts would be less than significant
in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(f). Project implementation would not conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would
occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.11-1 August 2019
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 Impact. According to Appendix A, Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP), of the General
Plan PEIR, the City’s mineral resources are limited to sand and gravel resources (“aggregate”)
along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The project site is located within a developed,
urbanized area of the City and is located approximately 0.76 mile to the east of the Santa Ana
River and approximately one mile to the north of Santiago Creek. As such, no mineral resources
are expected in the project area and project implementation would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the
State. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.11-2 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-1 August 2019
4.12 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as
air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not
hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies.
To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has
been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately three
dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over
one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the
decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of
sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary
sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by
mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between three dBA and 4.5 dBA per
doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects
between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt,
have an attenuation rate of three dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or
vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise
generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA
per doubling of distance.
There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate
constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant
sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound.
Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound
Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-2 August 2019
sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the
increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when
people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for
light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
City of Orange
City of Orange General Plan
The City of Orange General Plan (General Plan) contains a Noise Element providing guidance
for the control of noise to protect residents, workers, and visitors from potentially adverse noise
impacts. Its primary goal is to regulate the long-term noise impacts to preserve acceptable noise
environments for all types of land uses. This Element defers regulation of temporary, point-source
noises such as construction activities to the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. With regard
to long-term noise impacts, the Element contains stated goals, policies, and implementation
measures designed to guide City decision-making with respect to its purpose.
Goal 1.0 Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
Policy 1.1 Consider potential excessive noise levels when making land use planning
decisions.
Policy 1.2 Encourage new development projects to provide sufficient spatial buffers
to separate excessive noise generating land uses and noise-sensitive land
uses.
Policy 1.3 Incorporate design features into residential and mixed-use projects that
can be used to shield residents from excessive noise.
Policy 1.4 Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near noise-sensitive
areas.
Policy 1.5 Reduce impacts of high-noise activity centers located near residential
areas.
Policy 1.6 Require an acoustical study for proposed developments in areas where the
existing and projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum
allowable levels identified in Table N-3. The acoustical study shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements set forth within this Noise
Element.
Goal 2.0 Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive
land uses.
Policy 2.1 Encourage noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways,
highways, and freeways.
Policy 2.2 Encourage coordinated site planning and traffic control measures that
minimize traffic noise in noise-sensitive land use areas.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-3 August 2019
Policy 2.5 Work toward understanding and reducing traffic noise in residential
neighborhoods with a focus on analyzing the effects of traffic noise
exposure throughout the City.
Goal 7.0 Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential
areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy 7.2 Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques
during construction and maintenance operations.
Policy 7.3 Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located
adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.
The Noise Element utilizes an adopted noise and land use compatibility matrix based on the
State’s compatibility guidelines and modified to reflect City standards for residential and other
areas.
City of Orange Municipal Code
Chapter 8.24 of the City of Orange Municipal Code (Municipal Code) contains noise control
regulations that would have a limited application to the project’s construction noise impacts, as
the Municipal Code exempts construction activities from the chapter’s provisions during daytime
hours when these activities would occur. Noise associated with the maintenance of the property
(e.g., landscaping, cleaning, minor repair work) would similarly be exempt during daytime hours.
Noises from transportation sources traveling on roadways would be subject to the City’s General
Plan Noise Element.
8.24.050 – Exemptions from Chapter Provisions
The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real
property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of the hours specified
are subject to the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040.
I. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such activities
take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a
Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal
holiday. Operation of leaf blowers are regulated under Municipal Code Chapter 8.26.
L. Mobile noise sources including but not limited to operational noise from trains, or
automobiles or trucks traveling on roadways. Transportation noise as related to noise/land
use compatibility is subject to the City’s General Plan Noise Element.
As referenced by Section 8.24.050(e) above, construction activities occurring outside of the
provided hours would be regulated by the standards identified in Table 8.24.040 of the Municipal
Code as presented below in Table 4.12-1, City of Orange Exterior Noise Standards.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-4 August 2019
Table 4.12-1
City of Orange Exterior Noise Standards
Type Noise Level Time Period
Hourly Average 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 dB(A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Maximum Level 70 dB(A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
65 dB(A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Orange Municipal Code, Section 8.24.040.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stationary Sources
The project area is located within an urbanized area. The primary sources of stationary noise in
the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, commercial areas,
parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise associated with these sources may represent a
single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
Mobile Sources
The majority of the existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicle sources along Main
Street and Almond Avenue. As shown in Table 4.12-2, Existing Traffic Noise Levels, the highest
mobile noise sources adjacent to the project site were modeled at 65.4 dBA along Main Street
between Almond Avenue and Palmyra Avenue.
Table 4.12-2
Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Conditions
ADT
dBA @ 100
Feet from Roadway Centerline
Distance from Roadway
Centerline to: (Feet)
60 CNEL Noise Contour
65 CNEL Noise Contour
70 CNEL Noise Contour
Main Street
Chapman Avenue to Almond Avenue 28,698 67.4 673 213 67
Almond Avenue to Palmyra Avenue 28,578 67.5 669 212 67
Almond Avenue
Feldner Road to Main Street 2,453 54.1 30 10 3
Main Street to Batavia Street 7,093 57.1 61 19 6
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepare by Linscott Law & Greenspan, April 2018.
Mobile source noise was modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Noise
Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108), which incorporates several roadway and site parameters.
The model does not account for ambient noise levels. Noise projections are based on modeled
vehicular traffic as derived from the Chick-fil-A Main Street Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic
Impact Analysis) prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (dated April 10, 2018); refer to Appendix
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-5 August 2019
8.7, Traffic Impact Analysis and Circulation Plan. A 40-mile per hour average vehicle speed along
Main Street, a 30-mile per hour average vehicle speed along Main Street (Feldner Road to Main
Street), and a 25-mile per hour average vehicle speed along Main Street (Main Street to Batavia
Street) were assumed for existing conditions based on empirical observations and posted
maximum speeds. Average daily traffic estimates were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Noise Measurements
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area (vicinity of the project site),
four noise measurements were taken on June 19, 2018; refer to Table 4.12-3, Noise
Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise
exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten-minute measurements were
taken, between 9:48 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day.
Table 4.12-3
Noise Measurements
Site No. Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA)
Lmax (dBA)
Peak (dBA) Time
1
Near an apartment (1514 West Almond Avenue),
adjacent to alleyway, and off Almond Avenue and
McRoy Road
58.4 50.6 76.0 90.6 09:48 a.m.
2 Across project site, in front of a single-story home
(1433 West Almond Avenue) 59.8 49.8 76.1 98.0 10:02 a.m.
3 Western portion of the project site adjacent to the
wall of the preschool building 55.0 46.5 66.8 89.5 10:15 a.m.
4
On Almond Avenue, across Main Street from
project site, in front of a house (1318 West Almond
Avenue)
58.1 47.4 72.4 91.7 10:30 a.m.
Source: Michael Baker International, June 19, 2018.
• Measurement Site 1 was located near an apartment (1514 West Almond Avenue),
adjacent to the alleyway, and along Almond Avenue and McRoy Road. Sources of peak
noise included construction noise, traffic on Almond Avenue, and an overflying plane. The
noise level monitored at Site 1 was 58.4 dBA Leq.
• Measurement Site 2 was located across the project site and in front of a single-story home
(1433 West Almond Avenue). Source of peak noise included construction and street traffic
on Almond Avenue. The noise level monitored at Site 2 was 59.8 dBA Leq.
• Measurement Site 3 was located on the western portion of the project site adjacent to the
wall of the preschool building. Sources of peak noise included construction, children
playing outside, street traffic on Almond Avenue, and an overflying plane. The noise level
monitored at Site 3 was 55.0 dBA Leq.
• Measurement Site 4 was located on Almond Avenue, across Main Street from the project
site, and in front of a house (1318 West Almond Avenue). Sources of peak noise included
street traffic on Almond Avenue and Main Street. The noise level monitored at Site 4 was
58.1 dBA Leq.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-6 August 2019
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (0 to 5
miles per hour), and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey
consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre-
polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for sound level meters. The results of the field
measurements are included in Appendix 8.6, Noise Data.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels
that are generally acceptable to everyone; noise that is considered a nuisance to one person may
be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to
documented noise levels, or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under
various noise conditions.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 6 months and would include
demolition, grading, paving, and building construction. Ground-borne noise and other types of
construction-related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial construction phases.
These phases of construction have the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical
noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.12-4, Maximum Noise
Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. It should be noted that the noise levels identified
in Table 4.12-4 are maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual sound occurring
at an individual time period.
It is anticipated that construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. All construction activities would be required to comply
with the current City’s General Plan, Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, and applicable State and
Federal regulations. Construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be
concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensitive receptors. It should be noted
that the noise levels depicted in Table 4.12-4 are maximum noise levels, which would occur
sporadically when construction equipment is operated in proximity to sensitive receptors. Given
the sporadic and variable nature of proposed project construction and the implementation of noise
limits specified in the Municipal Code, noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
level. Additionally, to further reduce the potential for noise impacts and nuisances, Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 would be implemented to incorporate best management practices during
construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further minimize impacts from
construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. Thus, a less than
significant noise impact would result from construction activities.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-7 August 2019
Table 4.12-4
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA)
Concrete Saw 20 90
Crane 16 81
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79
Backhoe 40 78
Dozer 40 82
Excavator 40 81
Forklift 40 78
Paver 50 77
Pile Driver (impact) 20 101
Pile Driver (sonic) 20 96
Roller 20 80
Tractor 40 84
Water Truck 40 80
Grader 40 85
General Industrial Equipment 50 85
Note:
1 Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its
loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), dated January 2006.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
Off-Site Mobile Noise
Future development generated by the proposed project would result in additional traffic on
adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed
land uses. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project is projected to generate a
total of approximately 1,612 trips per day, which includes approximately 93 a.m. peak hour trips
and approximately 74 p.m. peak hour trips. The “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project”
scenarios are compared in Table 4.12-5, Future Traffic Noise Levels. As depicted in Table 4.12-
5, under the “Future Without Project” scenario, noise levels would range from approximately 54.2
dBA to 67.7 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along Main Street. The “Future With
Project” scenario noise levels would range from approximately 55.8 dBA to 67.8 dBA, with the
highest noise levels also occurring along Main Street.
Table 4.12-5 also shows the difference between the “Future Without Project” scenario and the
“Future With Project” scenario. The noise levels would result in a maximum increase of 1.6 dBA
as a result of the proposed project. This increase in noise would occur along Almond Avenue
(Feldner Road to Main Street). Since the proposed project would not significantly increase noise
levels along the roadway segments analyzed (i.e., noise increase would be less than 3.0 dBA), a
less than significant impact would occur.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-8 August 2019
Table 4.12-5
Future Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Future Without Project Future With Project
Difference in dBA @ 100 feet from
Roadway ADT
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway
Centerline
Distance from Roadway Centerline to:
(Feet)
ADT
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway
Centerline
Distance from Roadway Centerline to:
(Feet)
60 CNEL Noise
Contour
65 CNEL Noise
Contour
70 CNEL Noise
Contour
60 CNEL Noise
Contour
65 CNEL Noise
Contour
70 CNEL Noise
Contour
Main Street
Chapman Avenue to
Almond Avenue 30,676 67.7 720 228 72 31,442 67.8 736 233 74 0.1
Almond Avenue to
Palmyra Avenue 30,413 67.7 712 225 71 31,058 67.8 727 230 73 0.1
Almond Avenue
Feldner Road to Main
Street 2,502 54.2 31 10 3 3,671 55.8 45 14 5 1.6
Main Street to Batavia
Street 7,235 57.2 62 20 6 7,396 57.3 64 20 6 0.1
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepare by Linscott Law & Greenspan, April 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-9 August 2019
Cumulative Mobile Source Impacts
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when
the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The
combined effect compares the “cumulative with project” condition to “existing” conditions. This
comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated by a project combined with the traffic
noise increase generated by projects in the cumulative project list. The following criteria have
been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
• Combined Effect. The cumulative with project noise level (“Future With Project”) would
cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over existing conditions occurs
and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in
combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated
that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise
increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to
evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.
• Incremental Effects. The “Future With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over
the “Future Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have
been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and reduces as distance from
the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed project and growth due to occur in the
project site’s general vicinity would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.12-6,
Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project
vicinity for “Existing,” “Future Without Project,” and “Future With Project,” conditions, including
incremental and net cumulative impacts.
As indicated in Table 4.12-6, the Incremental Effects criterion of 1.0 dBA is exceeded along
Almond Avenue (Feldner Road to Main Street). However, the Combined Effects criterion of 3.0
dBA would not be exceeded along any of the segments. Thus, both the combined and
incremental effects criteria have not been exceeded and none of the roadway segments would
have a significant cumulative noise increase. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination
with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in less than significant impacts.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-10 August 2019
Table 4.12-6
Cumulative Noise Scenario
Roadway Segment
Existing
Future Without
Project
Future With
Project Combined Effects Incremental Effects
Cumulatively Significant Impact?
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
Difference In dBA
Between Existing and Future With Project
Difference In dBA
Between Future Without Project and Future With Project
Main Street
Chapman Avenue to Almond Avenue 67.4 67.7 67.8 0.4 0.1 No
Almond Avenue to Palmyra Avenue 67.5 67.7 67.8 0.3 0.1 No
Almond Avenue
Feldner Road to Main Street 54.1 54.2 55.8 1.7 1.6 No
Main Street to Batavia Street 57.1 57.2 57.3 0.2 0.1 No
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepare by Linscott Law & Greenspan, April 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-11 August 2019
On-Site Mobile Noise
The proposed project includes a Chick-fil-A restaurant, two-lane drive-thru, and 48 vehicle parking
spaces. The project site is located in a mostly developed commercial and residential area.
Further, the project would generate 1,612 daily trips, and would be similar to the noise
environment in the surrounding area (commercial and residential). Therefore, on-site traffic noise
would not generate substantial noise levels in exceedance of City Standards (Table 4.12-1), and
a less than significant impact would occur.
Stationary Noise Impacts
As stated above, the project proposes a commercial fast food restaurant facility. Noise that is
typical of commercial areas includes mechanical equipment, slow moving trucks, parking
activities, pedestrian activity, and drive-thru operations; typical of the surrounding commercial and
residential area. Noise impacts to surrounding uses associated with implementation of the
proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant.
• Mechanical Equipment. Typically, mechanical equipment noise is 55 dBA at 50 feet from
the source. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential use located approximately 83
feet to the north of the project site boundary.1 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) units could be included on the roof of the restaurant building, at the closest
possible distance of approximately 186 feet. At this distance, potential noise from HVAC
units would not be audible above existing ambient noise levels. Further, noise impacts
from these sources would be infrequent and intermittent. Therefore, the nearest receptor
(residential uses) would not be directly exposed to substantial noise from on-site
mechanical equipment. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
• Slow-Moving Trucks (Deliveries). The proposed project includes a commercial restaurant
development that would necessitate occasional truck delivery operations. Typically, a
medium 2-axle truck used to make deliveries can generate a maximum noise level of 75
dBA at a distance of 50 feet. These are levels generated by a truck that is operated by an
experienced driver with typically applied accelerations. Higher noise levels may be
generated by the excessive application of power. Lower levels may be achieved, but
would not be considered representative of a nominal truck operation. Truck deliveries to
the project site would generally consist of small trucks or vans and would not generate
excessive noise levels over an extended period of time. Impacts resulting from truck
delivery activities would be less than significant.
• Parking Lot Activities. 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. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated
by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys may be an annoyance to
adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated
with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 4.12-7, Typical Maximum Noise
Levels Generated by Parking Lots. Conversations in parking areas may also be an
1 It is acknowledged that a preschool facility is situated approximately 18 feet west of the project site. However, due
to the nature of this use and the hours of operation, this facility is not considered noise sensitive.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-12 August 2019
annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from
33 dBA at 48 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech.
Table 4.12-7
Typical Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots
Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Source
Car door slamming 63 dBA Leq
Car starting 60 dBA Leq
Car idling 61 dBA Leq
It should be noted that parking lot noise are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise
standards in the CNEL scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise
levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than what is
identified in Table 4.12-7. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on-
site. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise on-site and would be
partially masked by background noise from traffic along Main Street and Almond Avenue.
Noise associated with parking lot activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s Noise
Standards (Table 4.12-1) during operation. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots
would be less than significant.
• Drive-Thru Operations. The project proposes a restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru.
Noise levels from drive-thru operations would be primarily from the drive-thru
speakerphones, located on the southwestern portion of the project site, oriented towards
the southwest, and abutting neighborhood and school. The typical noise level associated
with active drive-thru operations (including the drive-thru speakerphones) is 68.2 dBA Leq
at a distance of 40 feet.2 As previously noted, the closest sensitive receptors to the project
site are residential uses located approximately 83 feet north of the project site boundary,
which would be approximately 206 feet from the proposed drive-thru speakerphones. At
a distance of 206 feet, noise from drive-thru operations would be approximately 54 dBA
Leq, which is below the City’s 55 dBA noise standard for residential uses (from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.). It should be noted that noise from drive-thru operations at the project site
would also be largely masked by traffic noise along Almond Avenue and Main Street. As
indicated in Table 4.12-2, existing noise levels along Almond Avenue range from 54.1 dBA
to 57.1 dBA and existing noise levels along Main Street range from 67.4 dBA to 67.5 dBA.
Thus, traffic noise levels along Almond Avenue and Main Street would be greater than the
drive-thru reference noise level of 54 dBA at a distance of 206 feet. It is noted that that a
preschool facility is situated approximately 18 feet west of the project site. However, due
to the nature of this use and the hours of operation, this facility is not considered noise
sensitive. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
2 Michael Baker International, Castaic Lake Water Agency Acoustical Study, June 17, 2010.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-13 August 2019
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Orange Public Works Department that the project complies
with the following:
• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
state required noise attenuation devices.
• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences, convalescent homes, etc.), to the extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
• Construction activities shall not take place outside of the allowable hours
specified by the City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.050 (7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday). Noise
generated outside of the hours specified are subject to the noise standards
identified in Municipal Code Section 8.24.040.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of
groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment
used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground
and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the
vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction
characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no
perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration
at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from
construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for
continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of
construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human
annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human
perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Typical
vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.12-8, Typical Vibration
Levels for Construction Equipment.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-14 August 2019
Table 4.12-8
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak particle velocity at 18 feet (inches/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity at 25 feet (inches/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity at 50 feet (inches/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity at 100 feet (inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.146 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.124 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small bulldozer 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.000
Jackhammer 0.057 0.035 0.012 0.004
Notes:
1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2.
2. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 4.12-8, based on
the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation that would
be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV)
at 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest structure (a preschool facility) is located
approximately 18 feet west of the project site boundary. The highest amount of ground-borne
vibration would be generated during grading activities on-site. As noted in Table 4.12-8, vibration
at 18 feet would range from 0.005 to 0.146 PPV. Therefore, vibration from construction activities
experienced at the closest structure would be below the 0.20 inch-per-second PPV significance
threshold. Because the project area is relatively flat, grading activities would be minimal and short
in duration. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4.12(a),
“Long-Term Operational Impacts.”
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and
4.12(b).
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-15 August 2019
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport located
approximately seven miles to the south. The proposed project is not located within an airport land
use plan. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft. No impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or related facilities.
Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.12-16 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.13-1 August 2019
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project could induce population growth in an area either
directly, through the development of new residences or businesses, or indirectly, through the
extension of roads or other infrastructure. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the
project involves the demolition of an existing 8,579 square foot restaurant structure and the
construction of a new 4,563 square-foot restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru. Implementation of
the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in population (indirectly
as a result of employees generated) compared to existing conditions.
Although an uncertainty exists regarding the number of new employees, who may choose to
relocate to the area, a conservative analysis of impacts associated with indirect population growth
can be provided. Upon project buildout, the Chick-fil-A restaurant would employ approximately
80 full- and part-time employees, with anywhere from 12 to 15 employees on shift at any one
time. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that 100 percent of the project’s new employees would
relocate to the City of Orange. Based on 80 new employees relocating to the City and an average
household size of 3.07 1, project implementation would result in a potential population increase of
approximately 246 persons. The potential population growth generated by the project would
increase the City population of 141,9522 persons to 142,198 persons, an increase of
approximately 0.2 percent. It should be noted that due to the nature of the proposed use (drive-
thru restaurant), it is not likely that employees of the restaurant would relocate to the City, but
rather the new jobs associated with the project would provide employment opportunities for
people already residing within the City.
Potential population growth impacts are also assessed based on a project’s consistency with
adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts estimate the City’s
population to reach 151,400 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 12,900 persons
1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
State – January 1, 2011 – 2018, May 2018.
2 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 –
2018, with 2010 Census Benchmark, May 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.13-2 August 2019
between 2012 and 2040.3 The project’s anticipated employee population (80 persons) represents
0.5 percent of the 2040 population anticipated for the City. SCAG’s regional growth projections
are based upon long-range development assumptions (i.e., General Plans) of the relevant
jurisdiction.
Additionally, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMIX) to General Commercial (CG). The NMIX minimum Floor to
Area Ratio (FAR) is intended to support higher intensity development consistent with an urban
mixed-use district. The project proposes to re-designate the project site to CG. Under the CG
designation, the allowed FAR and land use intensity would be reduced. Thus, the potential for
population growth at the project site would be less than anticipated under the current zoning. The
project would not result in growth significantly exceeding local and/or regional population
projections and is not considered substantial given the amended CG designation for the site.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth
within the City either directly or indirectly, resulting in less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site currently consists of an 8,579 square foot commercial restaurant
structure, which would be replaced with a new 4,563 square-foot restaurant with a two-lane drive-
thru. No housing exists on-site. Therefore, the project implementation would not displace any
existing housing or people. No impact would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(b).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecasts by Jurisdiction,
https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2016_2040RTPSCS_FinalGrowthForecastbyJurisdiction.pdf, accessed
September 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.14-1 August 2019
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Fire Department provides fire and emergency
response to the City, including the project site. Eight fire stations serve the City of Orange, and
the nearest station (Station 5 at 1345 West Maple Avenue) is approximately 0.25-mile north of
the project site.1 The proposed project would result in the demolition of an existing structure and
the construction of a new restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru. The proposed project is not
expected to result in the construction of new or physically altered fire facilities. As noted above,
there are several fire stations located within City boundaries. In addition, the proposed project
would be subject to City site/building plan review to ensure that the project meets fire safety
requirements. The proposed project would include features such as fire-resistant construction
materials, fire alarm/sprinkler systems, and hydrants. Additionally, the project would provide
adequate emergency access for fire vehicles with access via South Main Street to a 20-foot wide
fire access lane on-site located at the exit of the drive-thru to avoid potential blockage by queued
vehicles; refer to Exhibit 4.14-1, Fire Access. Upon compliance with existing design standards,
impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 City of Orange Website, City of Orange Fire Department – Locate a Station,
https://www.cityoforange.org/225/Locate-a-Station, accessed May 8, 2018.
Exhibit 4.14-1
Fire Access
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Source: Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates, Inc., November, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.14-3 August 2019
2) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Police Department provides law enforcement
services to the City, including the project site. The Orange Police Department is located at 1107
N. Batavia Street, which is located approximately 1.45 miles north of the project site.2
Implementation of the proposed project is expected to result in similar service calls typical of a
neighborhood commercial facility, as the project involves the demolition of an existing 8,579
square foot restaurant structure and the construction of a new 4,563 square-foot restaurant with
a two-lane drive-thru. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to City site/building plan
review to ensure that the project meets safety requirements. The proposed project would include
features such as security cameras within the building and project site, which would further support
crime prevention. It is not expected that long-term operation of the project would require new or
physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City provides school services through the Orange Unified
School District. The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing structure and
the construction of a new restaurant use and would not result in a substantial increase in
population on-site, or indirectly result in the increase in the number of students within the project
area. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are 22 parks within the City, and the nearest public park
to the project site is the El Camino Real Park, located approximately 0.50-mile north. As indicated
in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the potential population growth generated by the project
could increase the City population of 141,9523 persons to 142,198 persons, an increase of
approximately 0.2 percent. This is based on the assumption that the proposed drive-thru
restaurant results in all employees relocating to the City. Thus, project implementation would not
substantially increase the population in the project area. The proposed project is not anticipated
to result indirectly in a substantial increase in demands for parkland. Thus, impacts in this regard
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
5) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Other public services that could potentially be impacted by the
proposed project include public libraries. The project site is served by the Orange Public Library,
located approximately one mile to the northwest of the project site at 407 East Chapman Avenue.
As indicated in Section 4.13, the potential population growth generated by the project could
2 City of Orange Website, City of Orange – Police, https://www.cityoforange.org/592/Police, accessed May 22,
2018.
3 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 –
2018, with 2010 Census Benchmark, May 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.14-4 August 2019
increase the City’s population by approximately 0.2 percent. As stated, this is based on the
assumption that the proposed drive-thru restaurant results in all employees relocating to the City.
Thus, project implementation would not substantially increase the population in the project area.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in the use of the
City’s public library services. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.15-1 August 2019
4.15 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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?
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts to recreation beyond those
described in Response 4.14(a)(4) are anticipated. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.15-2 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-1 August 2019
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
This section is based upon the following studies, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan
Engineers; refer to Appendix 8.7, Traffic Impact Analysis and Circulation Plan:
• Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California (Traffic Impact
Analysis) (dated April 10, 2018);
• Supplemental Drive-Through Queuing Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange,
California (Supplemental Analysis) (dated May 10, 2019); and
• Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation Plan – Chick-fil-A Main Street, Orange
(Circulation Plan) (dated May 20, 2019).
The purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis is to evaluate potential project impacts related to traffic
and circulation in the vicinity of the project site. The evaluation considers impacts on local
intersections and regional transportation facilities. The following analysis scenarios are evaluated
in this section:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing Plus Project Conditions;
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-2 August 2019
• Year 2020 Without Project Conditions; and
• Year 2020 With Project Conditions.
The Traffic Impact Analysis follows the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated
August 15, 2007, and is consistent with the traffic impact analysis guidelines set forth in the current
Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines for traffic impact studies.
STUDY AREA
The traffic analysis study area is generally comprised of those locations which have the greatest
potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project as defined by the
Lead Agency (the City of Orange). The five key study intersections and four key roadway
segments selected for evaluation were based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic
Engineering Staff and application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in
the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The intersections and roadway segments
considered as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis are described in Table 4.16-1, Study Area
Intersections, and Table 4.16-2, Study Area Roadway Segments, and are mapped on Exhibit
4.16-1, Study Area.
Table 4.16-1
Study Area Intersections
Intersection No.1 Study Intersection
1 Main Street at Chapman Avenue
2 Feldner Road at Almond Avenue
3 Main Street at Almond Avenue
4 Batavia Street at Almond Avenue
5 Main Street at Palmyra Avenue
Note:
1. Intersection locations correspond to Exhibit 4.16-1.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
Table 4.16-2
Study Area Roadway Segments
Segment No.1 Key Roadway Segment
A Main Street, between Chapman Avenue and Almond Avenue
B Almond Avenue, between Feldner Road and Main Street
C Almond Avenue, between Main Street and Batavia Street
D Main Street, between Almond Avenue and Palmyra Avenue
Note:
1. Segment locations correspond to Exhibit 4.16-1.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
Exhibit 4.16-1
Study Area
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-4 August 2019
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Existing morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) peak hour operating conditions for the five key study
intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for
signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 20 of the Highway Capacity
Manual, Sixth Edition (HCM) for two-way stop-controlled intersections, and the methodology
outlined in Chapter 21 of the HCM for all-way stop-controlled intersections.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Method for Signalized Intersection
In conformance with City of Orange requirements, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour operating
conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the ICU method. The
ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to
capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting
traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus
capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology
assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing.
Pursuant to City of Orange requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700
vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was
added to each Level of Service (LOS) calculation.
The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection
performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical V/C ratios at an intersection and is not
intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six
qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range
and are shown in Table 4.16-3, LOS and V/C Ranges.
Table 4.16-3
LOS and V/C Ranges
LOS Intersection V/C Ratio Description
A 0.00 - 0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase
is fully used.
B 0.61 - 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin
to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
C 0.71 - 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light;
backups may develop behind turning vehicles.
D 0.81 - 0.90
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough
lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.
E 0.91 - 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can
accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
F > 1.000
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very
long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.
Note: LOS = Level of Service; V/C = Volume to Capacity
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-5 August 2019
Highway Capacity Manual Method for Unsignalized Intersection
The HCM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis
of the unsignalized intersections. LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections differ from LOS
criteria for signalized intersections as signalized intersections are designed for heavier traffic and
therefore a greater delay. Unsignalized intersections are also associated with more uncertainty
for users, as delays are less predictable, which can reduce users’ delay tolerance.
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop-controlled intersections are comprised of a major street, which is uncontrolled, and
a minor street, which is controlled by stop signs. LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection
is determined by the computed or measured control delay. The control delay by movement, by
approach, and for the intersection as a whole is estimated by the computed capacity for each
movement. LOS is determined for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well
as major-street left turns. The worst side street approach delay is reported. LOS is not defined
for the intersection as a whole or for major-street approaches, as it is assumed that major-street
through vehicles experience zero delay. The HCM control delay value range for two-way stop-
controlled intersections is shown in Table 4.16-4, HCM Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized
Intersections.
Table 4.16-4
HCM Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Delay per Vehicle (s/v) Description
A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
All-way stop-controlled intersections require every vehicle to stop at the intersection before
proceeding. Because each driver must stop, the decision to proceed into the intersection is a
function of traffic conditions on the other approaches. The time between subsequent vehicle
departures depends on the degree of conflict that results between the vehicles and vehicles on
the other approaches. This methodology determines the control delay for each lane on the
approach, computes a weighted average for the whole approach, and computes a weighted
average for the intersection as a whole. LOS at the approach and intersection levels is based
solely on control delay. The HCM control delay value range for all-way stop-controlled
intersections are the same as two-way stop-controlled intersections; refer to Table 4.16-4.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-6 August 2019
Volume to Capacity Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments)
Existing daily operating conditions for the four key roadway segments have been investigated
according to the daily V/C ratio of each link. The daily V/C relationship is used to estimate the
LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on the 24-hour traffic count data and the
capacity based on the General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element street classifications. The
roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the General Plan Circulation and
Mobility Element is presented in Table 4.16-5, Roadway Link Capacities, along with the six
corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios.
Table 4.16-5
Roadway Link Capacities
Facility Type Number
of Lanes
LOS Criteria with Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (Vehicles per Day)
LOS
A B C D E F
Principal 8-lanes
divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 --
Major 6-lanes
divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 --
Primary 4-lanes
divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 --
Secondary 4-lanes
divided 14,400 16,800 19,200 21,600 24,000 --
Collector 2-lanes
divided 7,200 8,400 9,600 10,800 12,000 --
V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00
Note: LOS = Level of Service; V/C = Volume to Capacity
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10,
2018.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
According to the General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element and City of Orange Traffic Impact
Analysis Guidelines, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained
during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections and LOS D is the
minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway
segments.
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
This section describes the existing conditions of the study area including the existing roadway
description, intersection geometry, and traffic volumes.
• Chapman Avenue is generally a six-lane, divided roadway west of Main Street, and
generally a four-lane, divided roadway east of Main Street, oriented in an east-west
direction. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the
vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit on Chapman Avenue is 40 miles per hour
(mph). Traffic signals control the study intersections of Chapman Avenue at Main Street,
Almond Avenue, and Palmyra Avenue.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-7 August 2019
• Main Street is generally a four-lane, divided roadway north of Chapman Avenue and
generally a six-lane, divided roadway south of Chapman Avenue, oriented in a north-south
direction. Main Street borders the project site to the east and provides access to the site
via one unsignalized, right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway. On-street parking is
generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the project. The posted
speed limit on Main Street is 35 mph north of Chapman Avenue and 40 mph south of
Chapman Avenue. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Main Street at
Chapman Avenue, Almond Avenue, and Palmyra Avenue.
• Almond Avenue is generally a two-lane, undivided roadway, oriented in an east-west
direction. Almond Avenue borders the project site to the north and provides access to the
site via one unsignalized, full-access driveway. On-street parking is not permitted along
both sides of this roadway along project frontage. However, parking is generally permitted
along the remainder of Almond Avenue within the vicinity of the project. The posted speed
limit on Almond Avenue is 30 mph west of Main Street and 25 mph east of Main Street. A
traffic signal controls the study intersection of Almond Avenue at Main Street.
EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To determine the existing operation of the study intersections and roadway segments, existing
daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the five key study intersections and
four key roadway segments were collected in March 2018. Traffic count data sheets and average
daily traffic volumes are included in Appendix B of Appendix 8.7.
Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis
Table 4.16-6, Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions, summarizes the intersection operations
analysis results for existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 4.16-6, all
five key study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 4.16-6
Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions
No. Intersection Jurisdiction Control Type Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period ICU/HCM LOS
1 Main Street at Chapman Avenue Orange 8 Phase
Signal D a.m.
p.m.
0.654
0.657
B
B
2 Feldner Road at Almond Avenue Orange All-Way Stop D a.m.
p.m.
8.4 s/v
8.6 s/v
A
A
3 Main Street at Almond Avenue Orange 5 Phase
Signal D a.m.
p.m.
0.475
0.455
A
A
4 Batavia Street at Almond Avenue Orange All-Way Stop D a.m.
p.m.
20.0 s/v
18.0 s/v
C
C
5 Main Street at Palmyra Avenue Orange 5 Phase
Signal D a.m.
p.m.
0.521
0.467
A
A
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-8 August 2019
Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 4.16-7, Roadway Segment – Existing Conditions, summarizes the existing service level
calculations for the four key roadway segments based on 24-hour traffic volumes and current
geometry. As shown in Table 4.16-7, all four key study roadway segments have a minimum
acceptable LOS of D and are operating at an acceptable LOS A on a daily basis.
Table 4.16-7
Roadway Segment – Existing Conditions
No. Key Roadway Segment Jurisdiction
No. of Existing
Lanes
Arterial
Classification
Existing Capacity
at LOS E
Existing Traffic Conditions
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
A Main Street, between Chapman
Avenue and Almond Avenue Orange 6D Major 56,300 28,698 0.510 A
B Almond Avenue, between
Feldner Road and Main Street Orange 2U Collector 12,000 2,453 0.204 A
C Almond Avenue, between Main
Street and Batavia Street Orange 2U Collector 12,000 7,093 0.591 A
D Main Street, between Almond
Avenue and Palmyra Avenue Orange 6D Major 56,300 28,578 0.508 A
Note: LOS = Level of Service; V/C = Volume to Capacity
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related impacts on the surrounding roadway system are
analyzed below.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
To determine project trip generation of the proposed project, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012) published trip generation rates were used.
Table 4.16-8, Project Trip Generation, summarizes ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the
number of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-9 August 2019
Table 4.16-8
Project Trip Generation
ITE Land Use Code/Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Factors:
934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru
(TE/1,000 square feet)1 470.95 20.50 19.69 40.19 16.99 15.68 32.67
Generation Forecast:
Chick-fil-A Restaurant with Drive-Thru (4,563
square feet) 2.149 93 90 183 77 72 149
Pass-By (Daily 25%; A.M. 49%; P.M. 50%)2 -537 -46 -44 -90 -39 -36 -75
Subtotal 1,612 47 46 93 38 36 74
Total Traffic Generation Forecast 1,612 47 46 93 38 36 74
Notes:
1. TE/1,000 square feet = trip end per thousand square feet
2. Pass-By adjustments account for trips that are already in the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets (i.e. Main Street and Almond
Avenue) and will stop as they pass by the project site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
As shown in Table 4.16-8, the proposed project is forecast to generate 93 a.m. peak hour trips,
74 p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,612 daily trips. Although there is an existing restaurant on-site,
this restaurant is currently vacant, and thus was not discounted from the project trip distribution
calculations.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section analyzes traffic conditions associated with the addition of trips forecast to be
generated by the proposed project on the existing roadway network.
Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Conditions
Existing plus project conditions peak hour volumes were derived by adding project-generated trips
to the existing condition traffic volumes. Figure 5.4, Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes, and Figure 5.5, Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, of the Traffic
Impact Analysis (Appendix 8.7) show existing plus project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour
intersection volumes.
Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Analysis
Table 4.16-9, Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions, summarizes the a.m. and
p.m. peak hour intersection operations analysis results for the existing plus project condition,
based on existing and initial intersection geometry. As concluded in Table 4.16-9, all five key
study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-10 August 2019
Table 4.16-9
Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions
No. Intersection
Time
Period
Existing Existing Plus Project Project Significant Impact
ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No
1 Main Street at
Chapman Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.654
0.567
B
B
0.666
0.660
B
B
0.012
0.003
No
No
2 Feldner Road at
Almond Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
8.4 s/v
8.7 s/v
A
A
8.4 s/v
8.7 s/v
A
A
0.0
0.1
No
No
3 Main Street at
Almond Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.475
0.455
A
A
0.501
0.472
A
A
0.026
0.017
No
No
4 Batavia Street at
Almond Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
20.0 s/v
18.0 s/v
C
C
20.4 s/v
18.3 s/v
C
C
0.4 s/v
0.3 s/v
No
No
5 Main Street at
Palmyra Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.521
0.467
A
A
0.523
0.469
A
A
0.002
0.002
No
No
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
Based on the traffic impact criteria and thresholds discussed above, the traffic associated with
the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five study intersections for existing
plus project conditions.
Existing Plus Project Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 4.16-10, Roadway Segment Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions, summarizes the
roadway segment LOS results at the four key roadway segments for existing plus project traffic
conditions. As concluded in Table 4.16-10, all four roadway segments are projected to operate
at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 4.16-10
Roadway Segment Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions
No. Key Roadway Segment
Existing Capacity at LOS E
Existing Traffic
Conditions Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Inc. Adverse?
A Main Street, between Chapman
Avenue and Almond Avenue 56,300 28,698 0.510 A 29,464 0.523 A 0.013 No
B Almond Avenue, between
Feldner Road and Main Street 12,000 2,453 0.204 A 3,622 0.302 A 0.098 No
C Almond Avenue, between Main
Street and Batavia Street 12,000 7,093 0.591 A 7,254 0.605 B 0.014 No
D Main Street, between Almond
Avenue and Palmyra Avenue 56,300 28,578 0.508 A 29,223 0.519 A 0.011 No
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C = Volume to Capacity
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
Based on the traffic impact criteria and thresholds discussed above, project generated traffic
would not significantly impact any of the four key roadway segments above for existing plus
project conditions.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-11 August 2019
YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section analyzes the traffic conditions associated with the addition of trips forecast at the
time the project is anticipated to open in Year 2020.
Year 2020 Without Project Conditions Traffic Conditions
The year 2020 without project traffic volumes were calculated using an ambient growth rate of 1.0
percent per year, for two years, to the existing (2018) traffic volumes.
Table 4.16-11, Cumulative Projects, summarizes the cumulative development in the project’s
vicinity that are expected to generate vehicular traffic which may affect the operating conditions
of the key study intersections and/or roadway segments. Exhibit 4.16-2, Cumulative Project Map,
illustrates the location of the cumulative projects whose trip generation and assignment was
added to the study area network.
Table 4.16-11
Cumulative Projects
No. Description Location/Address1 Size
1 3800 Chapman Apartments 3800 Chapman Avenue 280 DU Apartments
2 Orange Art of Dentistry 2006 West Chapman Avenue 2,565 SF Dentist Office
3 Woody’s Diner 2145 West Chapman Avenue 3,400 SF Restaurant
4 7-11 Gas Station 2245 West Chapman Avenue 2,400 SF Convenience Store and
Gas Station
5 City Plaza 1 West City Boulevard 335 DU Apartments
165 Room Hotel
6 City Parkway West
Apartments 500 and 600 City Parkway 220 Apartments
7 Town and Country
Apartments and Townhomes 702 West Town and Country Road 653 DU Apartments
74 DU Townhomes
8 999 Town and Country
Apartments 999 Town and Country Road 262 DU Apartments
9 Eleven10 Apartment Homes 1110 Town and Country Road 260 DU Apartments
10 The Terrace Apartments Southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and
Lewis Street
167 DU Apartments
28 DU Townhomes
11 Marriott Dual Brand Hotel 3000 West Chapman Avenue 300 Room Hotel
3,000 SF Restaurant
Note: SF = Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units
1. It is acknowledged that all cumulative projects are located within the City of Orange.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
Exhibit 4.16-2
Cumulative Project Map
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-13 August 2019
Year 2020 Without Project Conditions Intersection Analysis
Table 4.16-12, Intersection Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions, summarizes year 2020 without
project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections.
Table 4.16-12
Intersection Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions
No. Intersection Peak Hour
Existing
Year 2020
Without Project
Year 2020
With Project
Potentially
Significant Impact
ICU/HCM (s/v) LOS ICU/HCM (s/v) LOS ICU/HCM (s/v) LOS Increase Yes/No
1
Main Street at
Chapman
Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.654
0.567
B
B
0.667
0.702
B
C
0.678
0.705
B
C
0.011
0.003
No
No
2
Feldner Road
at Almond
Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
8.4 s/v
8.7 s/v
A
A
8.4 s/v
8.7 s/v
A
A
8.5 s/v
8.7 s/v
A
A
0.1 s/v
0.0 s/v
No
No
3
Main Street at
Almond
Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.475
0.455
A
A
0.484
0.468
A
A
0.509
0.485
A
A
0.025
0.017
No
No
4
Batavia Street
at Almond
Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
20.0 s/v
18.0 s/v
C
C
21.4 s/v
18.9 s/v
C
C
21.9 s/v
19.2 s/v
C
C
0.5 s/v
0.3 s/v
No
No
5
Main Street at
Palmyra
Avenue
a.m.
p.m.
0.521
0.467
A
A
0.530
0.480
A
A
0.532
0.482
A
A
0.002
0.002
No
No
Notes: LOS = Level of Service; s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
As concluded in Table 4.16-12, the intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS
(LOS D or better) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for year 2020 without project conditions.
Year 2020 Without Project Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 4.16-13, Roadway Segment Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions, summarizes year 2020
without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the four key roadway segments.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-14 August 2019
Table 4.16-13
Roadway Segment Analysis – Year 2020 Conditions
No. Key Roadway Segment
Existing Capacity at LOS E
Year 2020 Cumulative
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Inc. Adverse?
A Main Street, between Chapman
Avenue and Almond Avenue 56,300 30,676 0.545 A 31,442 0.558 A 0.013 No
B Almond Avenue, between Feldner
Road and Main Street 12,000 2,502 0.209 A 3,671 0.306 A 0.097 No
C Almond Avenue, between Main
Street and Batavia Street 12,000 7,235 0.603 B 7,396 0.616 B 0.013 No
D Main Street, between Almond
Avenue and Palmyra Avenue 56,300 30,413 0.540 A 31,058 0.552 A 0.012 No
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C = Volume to Capacity
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
As concluded in Table 4.16-13, the four key roadway segments are projected to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for year 2020 without
project conditions.
YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section analyzes traffic conditions associated with the addition of trips forecast to be
generated by the proposed project to year 2020 with project conditions.
Year 2020 With Project Conditions Traffic Volumes
Year 2020 with project conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding forecast project-
generated trips to year 2020 without project conditions traffic volumes. Year 2020 with project
conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections is depicted on Traffic
Impact Analysis Figure 6-6, Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
and Figure 6-7, Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, provided in
Appendix 8.7.
Year 2020 With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis
Table 4.16-12 summarizes the a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection operations analysis results
for year 2020 with project conditions, based on existing and initial intersection geometry. As
indicated in Table 4.16-12, the intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable
LOS (LOS D or better) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for year 2020 with project conditions.
Based on the traffic impact criteria and thresholds discussed above, the addition of project
generated trips would not result in a significant impact at any of the study intersections for year
2020 with project conditions.
Year 2020 With Project Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 4.16-13 summarizes year 2020 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the
four key roadway segments. As indicated in Table 4.16-13, the four roadway segments are
projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours for year 2020 with project conditions. Based on the traffic impact criteria and
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-15 August 2019
thresholds discussed above, the addition of project generated trips would not result in a significant
impact at any of the key roadway segments for year 2020 with project conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately generate 93 a.m. peak hour trips, 74
p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,612 daily trips. Based on the applicable agency-established
thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts at
the study intersections or roadway segments for the existing conditions, or opening year (2020).
Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange is subject to the Orange County Congestion
Management Program (CMP). The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for
any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that
directly access the CMP Highway System. According to the CMP guidance, this number is based
on the desire to analyze impacts which would be 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway
system facilities’ capacity. As indicated in Response 4.16(a), the project would generate 1,612
daily trips. However, the project site does not directly access the CMP Highway System. As a
result, project implementation would not result in significant CMP traffic impacts and no impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the Saint Joseph’s
Hospital helipad and 1.3 miles east of the Children’s Hospital of Orange County helipad.
However, construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase the frequency of
air traffic or alter air traffic patterns, as the project would replace an existing single story restaurant
building with a new single story restaurant building involving a maximum height of approximately
22 feet. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would
include two 12-foot drive-thru lanes (that merge into one 12-foot lane) with directional signage
located at the northwestern portion of the project site. The proposed drive-thru lane would wrap
around the western and southern sides of the proposed building, and vehicles would enter from
West Almond Avenue or South Main Street and exit the drive-thru lane at the southeast corner of
the building. The drive-thru would provide stacking for up to 17 vehicles from the entry to the
pick-up window with additional on-site overflow space as needed.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-16 August 2019
DRIVE-THRU LANE QUEUING ASSESSMENT
The Traffic Impact Analysis assessed the project’s drive-thru lane queuing based on sample
surveys collected at the five following Chick-fil-A locations:
• 2889 Park Avenue, Tustin, CA;
• 2575 North Tustin Street, Orange, CA;
• 6428 Irvine Boulevard, Irvine, CA;
• 24011 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA; and
• 3555 Grand Oaks, Corona, CA.
Supplemental sample surveys were also collected as part of the Supplemental Analysis at the
following two Chick-fil-A locations.
• 4401 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA; and
• 4050 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, CA.
For the five initial locations surveyed, drive-thru queuing observations were conducted at each
location on a weekday during the morning, mid-day, and evening service periods, generally
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. and 7:00
p.m. Saturday queuing observations were also collected between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. and
4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. at the Laguna Hills site and Corona site. Table 4.16-14, Existing Chick-
fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations, summarizes the observed drive-thru lane queue data
collected at the five Chick-fil-A locations.
Table 4.16-14
Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations
Study Site
Drive-Thru Observation
Date
Number of Vehicles Observed in
Drive-Thru Proposed Project
85th Percentile1
Queue
95th Percentile
Queue
Maximum
Queue
Drive-Thru Lane
Storage
Adequate for 85th Percentile
Queue?
2889 Park Avenue, Tustin, CA 12/2010 6 13 15 17 Yes
2575 North Tustin Street, Orange, CA 04/2012 11 14 15 17 Yes
6428 Irvine Boulevard, Irvine, CA 04/2012 8 10 12 17 Yes
24011 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 01/2017 and
11/2017 11 14 17 17 Yes
3555 Grand Oaks, Corona, CA 01/2017 and
11/2017 13 13 16 17 Yes
Note:
1. The 85th percentile queue is generally utilized when designing/sizing the length of the proposed drive-thru lane.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-17 August 2019
For the two supplemental survey locations, the locations were selected based on their store
location situated along a major arterial intersection, as a stand alone store, rather than part of a
larger shopping center. Drive-thru queuing observations were conducted at the two locations on
two weekdays during the mid-day and evening service periods, generally between the hours of
11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday queuing observations were also
collected between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Table 4.16-
15 through Table 4.16-17 include the results of the queuing observation surveys for weekday
(Wednesday/Thursday), weekday (Friday), and weekend (Saturday) peak periods, respectively.
Table 4.16-15
Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive -Thru Lane Queue Observations (Weekday)
Study Site
Drive-Thru
Observation
Date
Number of Vehicles Observed in Drive-Thru Proposed Project
85th
Percentile1
Queue
95th
Percentile
Queue
Maximum
Queue
Drive-
Thru Lane
Storage
Adequate
for 85th
Percentile
Queue?
4401 Pacific Coast Highway, Long
Beach, CA
04/2019 16 18 20 17 Yes
4050 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, CA 02/2019 11 14 17 17 Yes
Note:
1. The 85th percentile queue is generally utilized when designing/sizing the length of the proposed drive-thru lane.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Supplemental Drive-Through Queuing Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange,
California, May 10, 2019.
Table 4.16-16
Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive -Thru Lane Queue Observations (Friday)
Study Site
Drive-Thru
Observation
Date
Number of Vehicles Observed in Drive-Thru Proposed Project
85th
Percentile1
Queue
95th
Percentile
Queue
Maximum
Queue
Drive-
Thru Lane
Storage
Adequate for 85th
Percentile
Queue?
4401 Pacific Coast Highway, Long
Beach, CA
04/2019 15 15 18 17 Yes
4050 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, CA 02/2019 11 13 15 17 Yes
Note:
1. The 85th percentile queue is generally utilized when designing/sizing the length of the proposed drive-thru lane.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Supplemental Drive-Through Queuing Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange,
California, May 10, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-18 August 2019
Table 4.16-17
Supplemental Existing Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Lane Queue Observations (Saturday)
Study Site
Drive-Thru Observation
Date
Number of Vehicles Observed in
Drive-Thru Proposed Project
85th Percentile1
Queue
95th Percentile
Queue
Maximum
Queue
Drive-Thru Lane
Storage
Adequate for 85th Percentile
Queue?
4401 Pacific Coast Highway, Long
Beach, CA
04/2019 14 16 19 17 Yes
4050 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, CA 02/2019 9 10 12 17 Yes
Note:
1. The 85th percentile queue is generally utilized when designing/sizing the length of the proposed drive-thru lane.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Supplemental Drive-Through Queuing Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange,
California, May 10, 2019.
Based on Table 4.16-14, the five study sites would experience an 85th percentile queue range of
between six to 13 vehicles. Further, based on Table 4.16-15 through Table 4.16-17, the two
additional study sites would experience an 85th percentile queue range of between nine to 16
vehicles. As a result, the 85th percentile expected queues can be accommodated without
interfering with internal circulation or causing congestion to the drive aisle and the project’s drive-
thru storage for up to 17 vehicles would accommodate anticipated drive-thru operations
throughout the day within the drive-thru lane. It should also be noted that the maximum queue of
20 vehicles, which only occurred two times and only at one site throughout the survey, can be
accommodated on-site within the drive aisles without impacting traffic flow on Almond Avenue;
refer to Exhibit 4.16-3. Although determined to be unlikely based on the Traffic Impact Analysis
and Supplemental Analysis, should the drive-thru queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Mitigation
Measure TRA-1 would ensure Chick-fil-A staff direct customers to utilize the Main Street access
to enter the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management would also be required to direct staff to park
in the stalls closest to the drive-thru entrance along Almond Avenue. This would allow stacking,
if needed. It should be noted that the east-west on-site drive aisle along the restaurant frontage
is not considered a fire lane, so queuing within the drive aisle is acceptable.
Exhibit 4.16-3
Circulation Plan
NOT TO SCALE
08/19 | JN 166516
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, On-Site Transportation Circulation & Queuing Management Plan – Chick-fi-A Main Street, Orange, January 31, 2019
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-20 August 2019
PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSIS
The project site would be accessed by one unsignalized, full-access driveway located along
Almond Avenue (Project Driveway No. 1) and one unsignalized, right-turn in/right-turn out only
driveway located along Main Street (Project Driveway No. 2). Table 4.16-18, Project Driveway
Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary, summarizes the intersection operations at Project
Driveway No. 1 and No. 2 for year 2020 with project conditions.
Table 4.16-18
Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary
Project Driveway
Time
Period
Intersection
Control
Year 2020 With Project Traffic Conditions
HCM (s/v) LOS
Project Driveway No. 1 at Almond Avenue a.m.
p.m. One-way stop 10.1
9.5
B
A
Project Driveway No. 2 at Main Street a.m.
p.m. One-way stop 18.1
14.8
C
B
Note: LOS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
As indicated in Table 4.16-18, the two proposed project driveways would operate at an acceptable
LOS during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods for year 2020 with project conditions. Based on
the traffic impact criteria and thresholds discussed above, the addition of project generated trips
would not result in a significant impact at any of the project driveways for year 2020 with project
conditions. As illustrated on Exhibit 4.16-3, an approximately 50-foot space between the end of
the maximum queue and the entrance to the parking lot from Almond Avenue would be available.
Thus, drive-thru queuing would not impact operations of Project Driveway No. 1 at Almond
Avenue. Based on the driveway analyses and the distance of the project driveways from the
intersection of Main Street and Almond Avenue, operations of Project Driveway No. 1 at Almond
Avenue and Project Driveway No. 2 at Main Street would not result in significant impacts to
neighborhood traffic. Additionally, left-turn movements into Project Driveway No. 1 at Almond
Avenue would not conflict with entry into the existing medical office building to the north of the
project site. Further, eastbound morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes along West
Almond Avenue are 174 and 98 trips, respectively, which is minimal. Therefore, eastbound traffic
would not block access to Project Driveway No. 1 at Almond Avenue. Thus, impacts in regard
would be less than significant.
DELIVERY TRUCK TURNING RADII ANALYSIS
The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the on-site circulation layout of the proposed project
on an overall basis is adequate; refer to Figure 2-2 of Appendix 8.7. Curb return radii have been
confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash
trucks. Further, Chick-fil-A would schedule night-key (after hour) deliveries to minimize traffic
disruptions during our operating hours. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
BUS STOP LOCATIONS
There are two bus stops located in proximity to the project site; refer to the discussion below
regarding bus transit services. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bus Stop 5502
(Main-Almond) is located approximately 0.04-mile to the northeast of the project site, while Bus
Stop 5523 (Main-Almond) is directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. The project
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-21 August 2019
would not result in any conflicts or hazards with Bus Stop 5502, as it is located north of Almond
Avenue on the east side of Main Street. Bus Stop 5523 is directly adjacent to the project site’s
eastern boundary, just south of the existing driveway. The project’s proposed driveway location
on Main Street could potentially interfere with the physical length of the bus stop. In consultation
with OCTA, the project proposes to relocate Bus Stop 5523 approximately 100 feet to the south
of its current location to avoid any conflicts with buses accessing the bus stop and the proposed
driveway, while still providing existing service to transit users. OCTA approval of the bus stop
relocation is identified as a required approval in Section 2.3.1 With appropriate approvals required
by OCTA pertaining to the bus stop relocation, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1 The applicant shall implement the proposed on-site transportation circulation plan
detailed in the Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation Plan – Chick-fil-A Main
Street, Orange, dated May 20, 2019 and prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan
Engineers, which requires Chick-fil-A staff to monitor vehicle queuing in the drive-thru
lanes to ensure queued vehicles do not block vehicular circulation within the parking lot
and at the Almond Avenue driveway. Should queueing occur beyond the available
vehicle storage (17 vehicles), team members shall go out to the drive-thru lanes and
take orders with hand held ordering and payment devices to increase ordering and
payment efficiency and reduce queues. Should the vehicle queue extend onto Almond
Avenue, Chick-fil-A staff shall direct customers to utilize the Main Street access to enter
the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management shall also direct staff to park in the stalls
closest to the drive-thru entrance along Almond Avenue, allowing stacking.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, the City
has an emergency plan which establishes emergency preparedness and emergency response
procedures. All City arterials are recognized as primary emergency response routes and non-
arterials are recognized as secondary emergency response routes. As discussed in Response
4.16(d), the project site would have two project driveways at Almond Avenue and Main Street. All
project driveways would be subject to the City’s site access and circulation requirements identified
in Municipal Code Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places. Further, all construction staging
would occur within the boundaries of the project site and would not interfere with the circulation
of nearby roadways or implementation of the City’s emergency plan. Further, as discussed in
Response 4.14(a)(1), the project would provide adequate emergency access for fire vehicles via
South Main Street to a 20-foot wide fire access lane on-site located at the exit of the drive-thru to
avoid potential blockage by queued vehicles; refer to Exhibit 4.14-1, Fire Access. Impacts
concerning emergency access would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 Written Correspondence: Kyle Poff, Stops and Zones Analyst, Orange County Transportation Authority, dated
May 10, 2019; refer to Appendix 8.8, OCTA Correspondence.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-22 August 2019
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation. The project site is served by adequate public
transit, and pedestrian facilities that would support the project, as discussed below. Refer to
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, for an expanded analysis of the project’s consistency with
the City’s policies for pedestrian and transit-oriented development.
PUBLIC BUS TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of Orange is primarily served by the OCTA bus service. Review of the OCTA’s Next
Ride Beta database indicates that there are two bus routes currently providing stops within
walking distance to the proposed project site (Bus Stops 5502 and 5523).2 As discussed above,
Bus Stop 5523 (situated just south of the existing on-site driveway) would be relocated
approximately 100 feet to the south of its current location. Similar signage and bench would be
installed consistent with OCTA requirements. The service schedule would not change. Thus, the
bus stop and associated service routes would remain available to transit users.
Although there is the potential for transit riders to patronize the proposed restaurant, as a fast
food restaurant, the project would not represent a land use which would result in a significant
volume of transit trips. Based on the available transit opportunities within the project area, project
implementation is not anticipated to interfere with access to any bus routes. Therefore, impacts
to existing transit service would be less than significant in this regard.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
There are currently no designated bicycle lanes adjacent to the project site. According to Figure
CM-3, Plan for Recreational Trails and Bikeways, of the General Plan Circulation and Mobility
Element, Almond Avenue is identified as a proposed area for future Class III (On-Street) bicycle
facilities. All construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the project site and would
not interfere with surrounding roadways. Further, project operations are not anticipated to impact
the performance of future bicycle facilities, as all project driveways would be subject to the City’s
site access and circulation requirements identified in Municipal Code Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks
and Public Places. The location of the restaurant structure within the project site would allow
drive-thru lanes to wrap around the western and southern site perimeter, ensuring the lanes would
not obstruct circulation routes for future bicycle facilities; refer to Exhibit 4.16-3. The project would
provide bicycle parking for patrons; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Site Plan. A less than significant impact
would occur in this regard.
PEDESTRIANS
Sidewalks are located adjacent to the project site’s northern and eastern boundaries.
Construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the project site but could temporarily
limit pedestrian use of sidewalks adjacent to the project site’s northern and eastern boundaries.
The project’s construction-related impacts to pedestrian circulation would be temporary and would
cease upon construction completion. Project operations would not impact pedestrian circulation,
2 Orange County Transportation Authority, Next Ride Beta, https://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-
Schedules/NextRide/Location/?location=33.7897033,-117.86652179999999, accessed May 10, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-23 August 2019
as access to existing sidewalks along Almond Avenue and Main Street would remain. The project
would provide new on-site landscaping along the perimeter of the project site, adjacent to the
existing sidewalks. The location of the restaurant structure within the project site would allow
drive-thru lanes to wrap around the western and southern site perimeter, ensuring the lanes would
not obstruct circulation routes for pedestrian walkways; refer to Exhibit 4.16-3. Two pedestrian
pathways from Main Street and Almond Avenue to the on-site Chick-fil-A restaurant would also
be constructed to allow for pedestrian connectivity along the adjacent roadways. A less than
significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.16-24 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.17-1 August 2019
4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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:
1) 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), or
2) 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 California
Native American tribe.
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by
establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill
specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California
Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA
called “tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe” and are either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a
local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural
resource.
In compliance with AB 52, the City of Orange distributed letters (to those Native American tribes
that have requested notification for the purposes of AB 52) notifying each tribe of the opportunity
to consult with the City on the proposed project on June 13, 2018; refer to Appendix 8.2, Cultural
Resources. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded requesting
consultation within the 30-day period required under AB 52.
On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend
regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code
of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources
pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of
Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these
amendments are addressed within this Initial Study.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.17-2 August 2019
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:
1) 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), or
No Impact. As analyzed in Response 4.5(a), there are no resources on the project site that are
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). As such,
development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a listed resource and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) 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 California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site exists within a
highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. The presence of subsurface tribal
cultural resources is not expected as the project site has been previously disturbed by prior
development and has previously been subject to archaeological monitoring in 2006 for the Qwest
Network Construction Project to the south. As indicated above, the City of Orange distributed
letters to the following potentially affected Native American tribes for consultation regarding the
proposed project in accordance with AB 52: Torrez Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians; and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The tribes had
30 days to respond to the City’s request for consultation. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation responded to the City’s request for consultation and requested consultation in any
ground disturbance conducted as part of the project. Per consultations, although not specifically
identified at the project site, the City acknowledges the potential presence of Tribal Cultural
Resources (TCRs) in the City. As such, in the event that project excavation uncovers previously
undiscovered buried TCRs, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would ensure a Native
American monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities and an appropriate course of
action is implemented to evaluate and preserve the potential TCR. Following implementation of
Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, the project would not significantly impact TCRs.
Impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
TCR-1 A Native American monitor from a tribe who is ancestrally related to the project area
(i.e., Native American Monitors of Gabrieleno Ancestry) shall be retained by the
applicant to be on-site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction
activities (e.g. pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing,
trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) and during all soil movement of previously
undisturbed soils. The monitor must be approved by the Tribal Representatives of the
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.17-3 August 2019
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) and will be represented on-
site during the construction phases that involve any ground-disturbing activities. The
Native American monitor(s) are required to complete monitoring logs on a daily basis.
The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities,
locations, soil, and any cultural materials. Should there be any hazardous concerns; the
monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
certification. In addition, the monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance
certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s) encountered
during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions outlined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The on-site monitoring shall end when
either the project site grading and excavation activities are complete or the Tribal
Representative and monitor have indicated the site has a low potential for archaeological
resources.
TCR-2 All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. If the resources
are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or
preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a) or is a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resource Code
(PRC) Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall comply with Mitigation
Measure CUL-1. If the resource(s) are not “unique” then no further mitigation would be
required.
TCR-3 Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall designate a feasible
location within the project footprint for the respectful reburial of any human remains
and/or ceremonial objects discovered on-site.
In the event of the discovery of human remains which are determined by the County
Coroner to be Native American, the discovery is to be kept confidential and secured to
prevent any further disturbance. In the case where discovered human remains cannot
be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with
muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the
excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a
24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working hours.
The preferred method of treatment for any discovery of Native American remains on-site
is preserving the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted to
preserve the remains in place, the Tribe shall work closely with the qualified
archaeologist to develop a treatment plan for a careful, ethical and respectful excavation
of the discovered remains. The treatment plan will include, but is not limited to, data
recovery methods and removal and reburial procedures. Once complete, a final report
of all activities shall be submitted to the Tribe and the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials
recovered.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.17-4 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-1 August 2019
4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
h. Have significant effects on energy resources as described in
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa
Ana Region, issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which
includes the City as a Permittee. The NPDES permit implements Federal and State law governing
point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and
nonpoint discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the
United States.
The project site is currently developed, and the City provides wastewater collection services to
the project site. The City of Orange Public Works department maintains 308 miles of basic sewer
collection pipelines that convey wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk
sewers. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by OCSD at its two wastewater treatment
facilities: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in the city of Fountain Valley, and Reclamation Plant
No. 2, located in the City of Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a treatment capacity
of 182 million gallons per day (mgd) for average daily flows (ADF), and 274 mgd for peak wet
weather flows (PWWF). Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a treatment capacity of 150 mgd for ADF
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-2 August 2019
and 317 mgd for PWWF. Together, the two plants currently treat approximately 185 mgd.1 Thus,
there is substantial remaining capacity for wastewater treatment at the OCSD plants for future
development projects.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing 8,579 square-foot restaurant
building and surface parking lots and constructing a new 4,563 square-foot drive-thru restaurant.
The project would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipeline in West Almond Avenue.
The project is not expected to exceed wastewater requirements of the RWQCB, as the City and
the OCSD would ensure the project meets all State and Federal wastewater treatment
requirements and the project site was previously served by a restaurant use. As part of any new
development project, the City would charge a standard sewer connection fee that assists in
ensuring that sufficient capacity is available and that the wastewater treatment requirements of
the RWQCB are met. Thus, upon payment of sewer connection fees, impacts in this regard would
be less than significant.
The project is also subject to compliance with on‐site sewer cleaning requirements. Municipal
Code Chapter 13.66, Fats, Oils and Grease Regulations (FOG), enhances beneficial public use
of the City’s sewer facilities; prevents blockages of sewer lines resulting from discharges of fats,
oils and grease, and other constituents to the sewer facilities; and specifies appropriate FOG
discharge requirements for food service establishments. Thus, upon compliance with all State
and Federal wastewater treatment requirements as well as on-site sewer cleaning requirements,
project implementation would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements
and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Water Division provides water service to
over 139,000 residents within the City’s 32-square-mile planning area.2 The proposed project
would connect new 2-inch PVC water lines to the existing 10-inch water line located within South
Main Street. The project would also connect a new 4-inch to 6-inch sewer line to the existing 8-
inch sewer main located within West Almond Avenue.3 The project’s potential impacts to the
environment, including activities associated with new water or wastewater infrastructure to serve
the project, are analyzed within this IS/MND. No new off-site water or wastewater treatment
facilities are proposed, nor are existing facilities proposed to be expanded.
Municipal Code Section 13.56.090, Charges for Sewer Mains or Extensions, imposes a sewer
main connection fee on non-residential development in the City as a condition precedent to the
issuance of a building permit to fund a project’s fair share of costs to upgrade the City’s sewer
system. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to pay ongoing user fees. Payment
of these fees would fund improvements and upgrades to the City’s sewer lines, as needed, and
would offset the project’s increase in demand for wastewater collection services. Following
1 CDM Smith, Project No. SP-173, Effluent Reuse Study, GWRS Final Expansions Final Implementation Plan,
Volume 1 of 3, October 21, 2016.
2 City of Orange, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Arcadis, June 2016.
3 The exact size of the sewer line would be determined by the plumbing plans based on the number of fixture
units.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-3 August 2019
compliance with the relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations, as well as the specified mitigation
measures identified in this IS/MND, it is not anticipated that water or wastewater facilities would
be required to serve the project that would result in a significant environmental effect. Refer to
Response 4.18(d), below, for a discussion of water supply impacts.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. Existing onsite runoff sheet flows from the north and east to an
opening in the existing block wall at the southwest corner of the site. Under existing conditions,
this opening is undersized and causes water ponding on-site. The runoff is collected in a grated
inlet on the property adjacent to the south and then flows south to an existing storm drain in
Palmyra Avenue, which is conveyed to the Orange County storm drain system that discharges
runoff to the Santa Ana River. Under existing conditions, this opening is undersized and causes
water ponding on-site.
The proposed project would follow a similar drainage pattern. Low flows would be collected by
three 24-inch by 24-inch grated inlets that would flow into an underground infiltration system. The
infiltration chambers would be sized and designed to capture the required storm capture volume,
which, for the project site, is the first 0.8 inches of rainfall for all storm events. Infiltration chambers
would infiltrate the receiving runoff within 48 hours. For overflows that exceed the design capacity
of the underground storage tanks, a bypass system would be installed that would outlet to an
existing 12-inch storm drain at the southwest portion of the project site, which would then flow off-
site onto the property to the south (similar to existing conditions) via a 12-inch storm drain, and
ultimately into the City’s storm drain system via an existing catch basin. The proposed
underground infiltration system would alleviate the existing ponding issue on-site for the first 0.8
inches of rainfall. Should increased rainfall occur, ponding would be similar to existing conditions.
The project would also sawcut and remove interfering sections of existing curb and gutter at the
northern portion of the project site along Almond Avenue and the eastern portion of the project
site along South Main Street for the purposes of driveway area. Former driveway locations would
be replaced with new curb and gutter. Upon project completion, improvements along Almond
Avenue and South Main Street would still facilitate stormwater along the existing storm drain
system, similar to existing conditions.
No off-site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities
are proposed, as existing facilities are adequate to serve the project site. Only minor curb and
gutter improvements are proposed along Almond Avenue and South Main Street. Curb and gutter
improvements would be constructed in accordance with City of Orange Standard Plan 117
requirements. The project’s potential environmental impacts, including activities associated with
utility systems and improvements to serve the project, are analyzed within this IS/MND. Following
compliance with the relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations, as well as the specified mitigation
measures identified in this IS/MND, the project would have a less than significant impact to
stormwater drainage facilities.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-4 August 2019
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange provides water service and would serve the
project site. The City of Orange receives its water from two main sources: groundwater from the
Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water
District (OCWD) and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).4 Groundwater is pumped from 15
active wells in the City. According to the City of Orange’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan,
the City currently relies on approximately 6,514-acre feet per year (AFY) of imported water
purchased from Metropolitan and 20,372 AFY of groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River
Groundwater Basin. Additionally, the City relied on 1,757-acre feet (AF) of surface water
purchased through Serrano Water District in 2015.
The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2040. The City of
Orange’s total water demand for 2015 was determined to be approximately 28,643 AF.
Development of the project would result in an estimated annual water demand of approximately
1.38 million gallons (4.24 AFY); refer to Appendix 8.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data. The
project’s estimated annual water demand of 4.24 AFY would represent less than one percent of
the City’s total water demand of 28,000 AFY for 2020 and 29,500 AFY for 2040. Thus, based on
the UWMP, there is adequate water supply to meet the needs of the project.
Further, the UWMP determined that the City would be capable of providing adequate water supply
to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario, single dry-year supply and
demand scenario, and multiple dry-year supply and demand scenarios through 2040. The UWMP
water supply predictions is based on existing General Plan designations and accounts for
increased demand as growth within the City occurs. As the amended General Plan land use
designation (General Commercial [CG]) is less intense than the current designation
(Neighborhood Mixed Use [NMIX]), the proposed project’s water demand and sewer generation
has been accounted for in the projections in the UWMP. Therefore, the UWMP demonstrates
that adequate supply is available to serve the City and the proposed project through the long-
range year of 2040.
In addition, the project would be designed such that it fully conforms with the regulations for water
efficiency identified in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations,
Title 24), Part 5, California Plumbing Code; and Part 11, California Green Building Standards
Code. The project would also be subject to conformance with the City’s Water Conservation and
Water Supply Shortage Program, which enforces permanent water reduction and landscape
water efficiency measures; refer to Municipal Code Chapter 7.02, Water Conservation and Water
Supply Shortage. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.18(a).
4 City of Orange, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Arcadis, June 2016.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-5 August 2019
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange, which includes the project site is served by
the following solid waste facilities and landfills: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, Olinda Alpha
Sanitary Landfill, and Prima Deschecha Sanitary Landfill. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary
Landfill has a total permitted capacity of 266,000,000 cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of
205,000,000 cubic yards of solid waste, and allows 11,500 tons per day of permitted throughput
and has an estimated closure date of December 31, 2053.5 The Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill
has a total permitted capacity of 148,800,000 cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of 34,200,000
cubic yards of solid waste, and allows 8,000 tons per day of permitted throughput and has an
estimated closure date of December 31, 2021.6 The Prima Deschecha Sanitary Landfill has a
total permitted capacity of 172,900,000 cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of 87,384,799 cubic
yards of solid waste, and allows 4,000 tons per day of permitted throughput and has an estimated
closure date of December 31, 2067.7
The proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste during the demolition and
construction process, in addition to solid waste generated by restaurant tenants and customers
during long-term operations. Construction activities would involve the removal of the 8,579
square foot existing restaurant structure and approximately 0.74 acres of asphalt associated with
the parking and driveway areas. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead based paints (LBP) were found within the existing
structure. The applicant would be required to dispose of the materials at an approved facility in
accordance with State laws and regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous materials.
During operations, the project is projected to result in 27.4 pounds per day of solid waste
generation.8 The project’s estimated 27.4 pounds per day (0.01 tons per day) of solid waste
generation would represent less than one percent of the combined maximum daily throughput of
the City’s three primary solid waste facilities (23,500 tons per day). The three landfills have
remaining capacities substantially greater than the project’s estimated solid waste generation.
The project would be subject to compliance with Municipal Code Section 8.28, Garbage, including
collection per City regulations and mandatory recycling of construction and demolition waste. As
the project would only nominally contribute to the daily tons per day of solid waste disposal as
discussed above, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
5 CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360),
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail/, accessed May 10, 2018.
6 CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0035),
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/, accessed May 10, 2018.
7 CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deschecha Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0019),
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0019/Detail/, accessed May 10, 2018.
8 General Plan PEIR, Table 5.12-9, Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation, page. 5.12-31, states
that commercial uses generate 6 pounds per thousand square feet per day [{4,563 x 6} / 1,000 = 27.4 pounds
per day].
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-6 August 2019
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent
of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. SB 2202 clarified that local governments shall
continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016 introduced
a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement
using a disposal measurement equivalent. For the 2016 reporting year, the City’s per Resident
Disposal Rate was 5.9 pounds per day and Per Employee Disposal Rate was 7.2 pounds per
day, which were less than the City’s Disposal Rate Targets of 10.1 pounds per day per Resident
and 14.4 pounds per day per Employee.9
Notwithstanding, the proposed project would be required to comply with the AB 939 50 percent
diversion requirement, including Municipal Code Section 8.28. Continued compliance with State
regulation would ensure that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
h) Have significant effects on energy resources as described in Appendix F of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
Less Than Significant Impact. Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal
Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in California was 7,830 trillion BTU’s in 2016 (the most recent
year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of 199 million BTU’s
per capita. Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 39 percent
transportation, 24 percent industrial, 19 percent commercial, and 18 percent residential.
Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as
residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally
accounted for by transportation-related energy use.10 In 2017, taxable gasoline sales (including
aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 15,540,154,774 gallons of gasoline.11
The electricity consumption attributable to Orange County from 2007 to 2016 is shown in Table
4.18-1, Electricity Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016. As indicated in Table 4.18-1,
energy consumption in Orange County remained relatively constant between 2007 and 2016, with
no substantial increase.
Table 4.18-1
Electricity Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016
Year Electricity Consumption (in millions of kilowatt hours)
2007 21,096
2008 21,514
2009 20,651
2010 19,788
9 CalRecycle, Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report,
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/jurisdiction/diversiondisposal.aspx, accessed May 10, 2018.
10 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates,
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA, accessed October 3, 2018.
11 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Fuel Taxes Statistics and Report: Net Taxable Gasoline
Gallons, http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.pdf, accessed October 3, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.18-1, continued
City of Orange 4.18-7 August 2019
Year Electricity Consumption (in millions of kilowatt hours)
2011 20,009
2012 20,620
2013 20,389
2014 20,827
2015 20,927
2016 20,391
Source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed October 3, 2018.
The natural gas consumption attributable to Orange County from 2007 to 2016 is shown in Table
4.18-2, Natural Gas Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016. Similar to energy consumption,
natural gas consumption in Orange County remained relatively constant between 2007 and 2016,
with no substantial increase.
Table 4.18-2
Natural Gas Consumption in Orange County 2007-2016
Year Natural Gas Consumption (in millions of therms)
2007 643
2008 632
2009 611
2010 635
2011 639
2012 612
2013 636
2014 544
2015 544
2016 569
Source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www. ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed August 14, 2018.
Automotive fuel consumption in Orange County from 2007 to 2017 is shown in Table 4.18-3,
Automotive Fuel Consumption in Orange County 2007-2018 (projections for the year 2018 are
also shown). As shown in Table 4.18-3, on-road automotive fuel consumption in Orange County
has declined steadily, since 2007.
Table 4.18-3
Automotive Fuel Consumption in Orange County 2007-2018
Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption (Gallons) Heavy-Duty Vehicle/ Diesel Fuel Consumption (Gallons)
2007 1,423,778,297 140,962,964
2008 1,365,076,979 130,526,813
2009 1,357,149,650 118,572,627
2010 1,363,676,577 121,946,393
2011 1,349,691,464 128,731,296
2012 1,323,464,829 132,391,898
2013 1,309,170,033 136,506,102
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 4.18-3, continued
City of Orange 4.18-8 August 2019
Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption (Gallons) Heavy-Duty Vehicle/
Diesel Fuel Consumption (Gallons)
2014 1,310,499,602 140,126,848
2015 1,302,220,609 146,075,106
2016 1,295,517,278 151,612,836
2017 1,280,170,453 155,501,327
2018 (projected) 1,248,703,310 159,431,547
Source: California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2014.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy consumption associated with the proposed project is summarized in Table 4.18-4, Energy
Consumption. As shown in Table 4.18-4, the electricity usage as a result of the project would
constitute an approximate 0.001 percent increase over Orange County’s typical annual electricity
consumption and an approximate 0.002 percent increase in the typical annual natural gas
consumption in Orange County.
Table 4.18-4
Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption
Orange County Annual
Energy Consumption2
Percentage Increase
Countywide2
Electricity Consumption 173 MWh 20,391,000 MWh 0.001%
Natural Gas Consumption 11,833 therms 569,000,000 therms 0.002%
Fuel Consumption
• Construction (Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicle) Fuel Consumption3 21,148 159,431,547 gallons 0.0001%
• Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumption3 89,872 1,248,703,310 gallons 0.01%
Notes:
1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with the total consumption in Orange County in 2016. The
project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide fuel consumption in 2018.
3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources
Board EMFAC2014 model.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ENERGY CONSTRUCTION
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy
consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction
materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such
as lumber and glass.
As indicated in Table 4.18-4, the overall fuel consumption would be 21,148 gallons for the
proposed project, which would result in a nominal increase (0.0001 percent) in fuel use in Orange
County. As such, project construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional
energy supplies.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-9 August 2019
OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic
and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and
for revising existing standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not
determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each
manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the
United States. Table 4.18-4 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling
throughout the City. As indicated in Table 4.18-4, project operations are estimated to consume
approximately 89,872 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase Countywide automotive fuel
consumption by 0.01 percent. The project would not result in any unusual characteristics that
would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. Fuel consumption associated
with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Building Energy Demand
The proposed project would be expected to demand approximately 173 million kilowatt hours
(kWh) of electricity per year and approximately 11,833 therms of natural gas per year. The
proposed project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including
appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and
lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage.
Furthermore, the electricity provider, Southern California Edison (SCE), is subject to California’s
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service
providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable
energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total
procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from
resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides,
waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures
projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.
As indicated in Table 6-4, operational energy consumption would represent an approximate 0.001
percent increase in electricity consumption and 0.002 percent increase in natural gas
consumption over the current Countywide usage. The project would adhere to all Federal, State,
and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. As such, the project
would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.
CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 4.18-4, the increase in electricity, natural gas, and automotive fuel
consumption over existing conditions is minimal. The increase in operational automotive fuel
consumption is approximately 0.01 percent over Orange County. For the reasons described
above, implementation of the proposed project would not place a substantial demand on regional
energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base
period electricity demand, or cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy
during operations, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy
conservation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.18-10 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.19-1 August 2019
4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is within a
developed urbanized area, and there are no rare, endangered, or threatened plants and animal
species within the project site. Since available nesting habitat is typically limited to the perimeter
trees surrounding the project site, the proposed project could result in potential impacts to nesting
birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has
been incorporated to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds.
As noted above within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural
Resources, the site exists within a highly developed area and the project site has been completely
disturbed as a result of the existing on-site structure. No known cultural or tribal cultural resources
exist within the boundaries of the site. Although it is not expected that cultural or tribal cultural
resources would be encountered during construction, the project would require excavation. As
such, Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 through TCR-3 have been provided in the
unlikely event archeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are discovered during the
grading and excavation process. Upon implementation of the Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-
2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and/or TCR-3, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 4.19-2 August 2019
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As noted within Section 4.0,
Environmental Analysis, impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant
with implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. Although the project may
incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s
contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable,” in consideration of the
relatively nominal impacts of the project and mitigation measures provided. Thus, impacts in this
regard would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial
Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air pollution, noise,
greenhouse gas emissions, geology and soils, and other issues. Standard conditions and
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that would reduce the potential
adverse impacts on human beings to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation
of standard conditions and mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in
environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-1 August 2019
5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading
Plan and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention
measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, the City
Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plans and specifications comply with SCAQMD
Rule 402, which requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent
fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. The following measures shall be
implemented to reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered during daily
construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site
to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The Applicant shall submit a watering
plan to control fugitive dust;
• Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply
non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the
site during site disturbance;
• Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed,
covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;
• All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
• Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after
construction is completed in the affected area;
• Track-out devices such as gravel bed track-out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet
long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be
installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes;
• On-site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
• Trucks associated with soil-hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and
utilize City-designated truck routes to the extent feasible.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-2 August 2019
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 In the event that vegetation and tree removal should occur between January 15 and
September 15, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting
bird survey no more than three days prior to commencement of construction activities.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no
active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the
clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Orange Community
Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird
nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered
during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside
of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer
shall be 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of
the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not
adversely affected by the construction activity. Prior to the commencement of
construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction
survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Orange
Community Development Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and
other appropriate agencies.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to respond on an as-needed
basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries.
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted, and the qualified archaeologist
shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resources. If the archaeologist
determines that they are unique archaeological resources as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2, the archaeologist shall make recommendations on
the treatment of the resources. The recommendations shall be developed in
accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. The Applicant shall follow all recommendations
made by the archaeologist. The final written report containing site forms, site
significance, and mitigation measures shall be submitted immediately to the Community
Development Department. All information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects shall be provided in a separate
confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written
report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center
within three months after work has been completed.
CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified
paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in
paleontology and demonstrated experience and competence in paleontological
research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation) to respond on an as-needed basis to
address unanticipated archaeological discoveries.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-3 August 2019
In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, all construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until the qualified
paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a
course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site paleontologist states in
writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage
paleontological resources.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to
the Community Development Department that the applicant has retained a qualified
Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist to perform soil sampling of all export and import
soils to confirm no hazardous materials contamination is present. Should contamination
be present above regulatory thresholds, use of those soils shall be conducted in
accordance with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
HAZ-2 Grading plans, approved by the City Engineer, shall indicate that prior to and during
structure demolition, a licensed asbestos technician shall perform abatement planning,
monitoring, oversight, and reporting. Visual inspection clearance shall be completed by
the licensed asbestos technician prior demolition to ensure asbestos materials have
been removed from the structure.
HAZ-3 Grading plans, approved by the City Engineer, shall indicate that prior to, and during
structure demolition, a lead certified professional shall conduct in-place management
work of lead based materials surfaces reported above the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Limit of Detection and are scheduled for demolition, and
ensure proper preparation, abatement, and disposal.
NOISE
NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Orange Public Works Department that the project complies with the
following:
• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
state required noise attenuation devices.
• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences, convalescent homes, etc.), to the extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
• Construction activities shall not take place outside of the allowable hours
specified by the City's OMC, Section 8.24.050 (7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any
day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of the
hours specified are subject to the noise standards identified in City of Orange
Municipal Code, Section 8.24.040).
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-4 August 2019
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
TRA-1 The applicant shall implement the proposed on-site transportation circulation plan
detailed in the Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation Plan – Chick-fil-A Main
Street, Orange, dated May 20, 2019 and prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan
Engineers, which requires Chick-fil-A staff to monitor vehicle queuing in the drive-thru
lanes to ensure queued vehicles do not block vehicular circulation within the parking lot
and at the Almond Avenue driveway. Should queueing occur beyond the available
vehicle storage (17 vehicles), team members shall go out to the drive-thru lanes and
take orders with hand held ordering and payment devices to increase ordering and
payment efficiency and reduce queues. Should the vehicle queue extend onto Almond
Avenue, Chick-fil-A staff shall direct customers to utilize the Main Street access to enter
the drive-thru lane. Chick-fil-A management shall also direct staff to park in the stalls
closest to the drive-thru entrance along Almond Avenue, allowing stacking, if needed.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 A Native American monitor from a tribe who is ancestrally related to the project area
(i.e., Native American Monitors of Gabrieleno Ancestry) shall be retained by the
applicant to be on-site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction
activities (e.g. pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing,
trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) and during all soil movement of previously
undisturbed soils. The monitor must be approved by the Tribal Representatives of the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) and will be represented on-
site during the construction phases that involve any ground-disturbing activities. The
Native American monitor(s) are required to complete monitoring logs on a daily basis.
The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities,
locations, soil, and any cultural materials. Should there be any hazardous concerns; the
monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
certification. In addition, the monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance
certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s) encountered
during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions outlined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The on-site monitoring shall end when
either the project site grading and excavation activities are complete or the Tribal
Representative and monitor have indicated the site has a low potential for archaeological
resources.
TCR-2 All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. If the resources
are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or
preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a) or is a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resource Code
(PRC) Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall comply with Mitigation
Measure CUL-1. If the resource(s) are not “unique” then no further mitigation would be
required.
TCR-3 Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall designate a feasible
location within the project footprint for the respectful reburial of any human remains
and/or ceremonial objects discovered on-site.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-5 August 2019
In the event of the discovery of human remains which are determined by the County
Coroner to be Native American, the discovery is to be kept confidential and secured to
prevent any further disturbance. In the case where discovered human remains cannot
be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with
muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the
excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a
24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working hours.
The preferred method of treatment for any discovery of Native American remains on-site
is preserving the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted to
preserve the remains in place, the Tribe shall work closely with the qualified
archaeologist to develop a treatment plan for a careful, ethical and respectful excavation
of the discovered remains. The treatment plan will include, but is not limited to, data
recovery methods and removal and reburial procedures. Once complete, a final report
of all activities shall be submitted to the Tribe and the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials
recovered.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 5-6 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-1 August 2019
6.0 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study.
1. 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.4(b).
2. 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.7.
3. CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary
LF (30-AB-0360), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/
Detail/, accessed May 10, 2018.
4. CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill
(30-AB-0035), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/,
accessed May 10, 2018.
5. CalRecycle official website, Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deshecha Sanitary
Landfill (30-AB-0019), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-
0019/Detail, accessed May 10, 2018.
6. CalRecycle official website, Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction
Diversion/Disposal Progress Report, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/
jurisdiction/diversiondisposal.aspx, accessed May 10, 2018.
7. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,
November 2017, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf,
accessed June 27, 2018.
8. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2014.
9. California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Preserves 2004 – Williamson Act
Parcels, Orange County, California, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03
_04.pdf, accessed May 9, 2018.
10. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/,
accessed May 9, 2018.
11. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
SRA, adopted October 2011, http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_
prevention_wildland_zones_maps.php, accessed May 21, 2018.
12. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Fuel Taxes Statistics and Report:
Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons, http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-
Report.pdf, accessed October 3, 2018.
13. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System:
Orange County, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/,
accessed May 9, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-2 August 2019
14. California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County,
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed October 3, 2018.
15. California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.
ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed August 14, 2018.
16. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventory - 2017 Edition, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm, accessed
June 6, 2018.
17. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge
Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the
Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban
Storm Water Runoff Orange County, May 22, 2009, https://www.waterboards.
ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/09_030_OC_MS4_as_a
mended_by_10_062.pdf, accessed May 21, 2018.
18. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Water Quality
Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8), Table 3-1, January 24, 1995 (updated
February 2016), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/
basin_plan/docs/2016/Chapter_3_Feb_2016.pdf, accessed May 21, 2018.
19. CARB, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to SB 375,
Resolution 10-31.
20. CEC, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
2016standards/, accessed June 27, 2018.
21. California Energy Commission, Adoption Hearing, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards.
22. CDM Smith, Project No. SP-173, Effluent Reuse Study, GWRS Final Expansions Final
Implementation Plan, Volume 1 of 3, October 21, 2016.
23. Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No.
217763), page 20.
24. City of Orange, City of Orange General Plan, March 2010.
25. City of Orange, City of Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report,
March 2010.
26. City of Orange, City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006.
27. City of Orange, City of Orange Municipal Code, amended January 30, 2018.
28. City of Orange, City of Orange Zoning Map, March 16, 2016, https://www.cityoforange.
org/DocumentCenter/View/626/Citywide-Zoning-Map-PDF, accessed May 24, 2018.
29. City of Orange, City of Orange 2014-2021 Housing Element, Table B-3, adopted
January 14, 2014.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-3 August 2019
30. City of Orange Redevelopment Agency, Design Standards for the Amendment to the
Southwest Project Area, June 1988, amended September 10, 2013 and March 13, 2018,
https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/6694/Southwest-Design-Standards-
--Amended-March-13-2018-1-of-65-PDF, accessed June 20, 2018.
31. City of Orange, Storm Water Local Implementation Plan (LIP), High Threat Residential
Areas, July 2011.
32. City of Orange, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Arcadis, June 2016.
33. City of Orange Website, City of Orange Fire Department – Locate a Station,
https://www.cityoforange.org/225/Locate-a-Station, accessed May 8, 2018.
34. City of Orange Website, City of Orange – Police, https://www.cityoforange.org/592/
Police, accessed May 22, 2018.
35. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0161J,
Map Revised December 3, 2009, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresults
anchor, accessed May 21, 2018.
36. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-
054), January 2006.
37. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines, May 2006.
38. Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis,
December 14, 2016.
39. Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated
November 21, 2016.
40. Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., Asbestos and Lead Identification Survey, dated May
24, 2017.
41. Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com, accessed June 2018.
42. Greenblatt, Jeffrey, Energy Policy, “Modeling California Impacts on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” Vol. 78, pp. 158–172.
43. Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Drainage Study, June 26, 2018.
44. Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management
Plan, March 18, 2019.
45. Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
to Mike Chrisman, California Secretary for Natural Resources, dated April 13, 2009.
46. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Supplemental Drive-Through Queuing Analysis
Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, May 10, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-4 August 2019
47. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street
Project, Orange, California, April 10, 2018.
48. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation Plan
– Chick-fil-A Main Street, Orange, May 20, 2019.
49. Michael Baker International, Castaic Lake Water Agency Acoustical Study, June 17,
2010.
50. Orange County Transportation Authority, Next Ride Beta, https://www.octa.net/
Bus/Routes-and-Schedules/NextRide/Location/?location=33.7897033,-117.866521799
99999, accessed May 10, 2018.
51. Rincon Consultants, Inc., Cultural Resources Assessment for the 202 S. Main Street
Chick-Fil-A Project, June 15, 2018.
52. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Hits Record
High Monthly Average, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2018/05/02/
carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-hits-record-high-monthly-average/, accessed June 6,
2018.
53. Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), April 2016.
54. Southern California Association of Governments, Final Program Environmental Impact
Report for 2016–2040, RTP/SCS, Figure 3.8.4-1, April 2016.
55. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, revised July 2008.
56. South Coast Air Quality Management District, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-
2008-2009/ghg-meeting-13/ghg-meeting-13-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
57. State of California Department of Conservation, Regulatory Maps,
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/informationwarehouse/, accessed May 21, 2018.
58. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2011 – 2018, May 2018.
59. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011 – 2018, with 2010 Census Benchmark, May 2018.
60. Summary of the California State Agencies’ PATHWAYS Project: Long-term Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Scenarios, April 2015.
61. U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates,
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA, accessed October 3, 2018.
62. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies
Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator,
accessed June 6, 2018.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-5 August 2019
63. Written Correspondence: Kyle Poff, Stops and Zones Analyst, Orange County
Transportation Authority, dated May 10, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 6-6 August 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 7-1 August 2019
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Orange (Lead Agency)
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
714.744.7220
Ms. Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
Mr. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Project Applicant)
15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350
Irvine, California 92618
Ms. Jennifer Daw, Design and Construction
4G Development and Consulting, Inc. (Project Design)
P.O. Box 270571
San Diego, California 92198
Mr. Robert Lombardi, PE, President
Michael Baker International (Environmental Analysis)
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505
Mr. Eddie Torres, Project Director
Ms. Kristen Bogue, Project Manager
Ms. Starla Barker, Senior Environmental Analyst
Mr. Ryan Chiene, Manager of Air & Noise Studies
Ms. Noelle Steele, Environmental Analyst
Ms. Alicia Gonzalez, Environmental Analyst
Ms. Frances Yau, Environmental Analyst
Ms. Danielle Regimbal, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Specialist
Ms. Linda Bo, Graphics/Technical Editor
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Cultural Resources Consultant)
250 East 1st Street, Suite 301
Los Angeles, California 90012
213.788.4842
Ms. Tricia Dodds, M.A., RPA, Archaeologist
Ms. Tiffany Clark, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator
Mr. Joe Power, AICP CEP, Vice President/Principal
Ms. Aisha Fike, Senior Architectural Historian
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
City of Orange 7-2 August 2019
Giles Engineering Associates, Inc.
(Geotechnical and Hazardous Materials Consultant)
1965 North Main Street
Orange, California 92865
714.279.0817
Mr. Edgar L. Gatus, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager
Mr. Robert R. Russell, P.E., G.E., Regional Director
Mr. Steven C. Thuemling, Corporate Manager – Phase I Services
Mr. Timothy J. Taugher, Senior Hydrogeologist
Ms. Monica L. Sell, Staff Engineer I
Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc. (Hydrology/Water Quality Consultant)
265 S. Anita Drive, Suite 111
Orange, California 92868
714.935.0265
Mr. Randy J. Decker, P.E.
Mr. Tony L. Prescott
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (Traffic Consultant)
2 Executive Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, California 92614
949.825.6175
Mr. Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal
Mr. Daniel A. Kloos, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer
Mr. Justin Tucker, Transportation Engineer I
FINAL
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A
DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019089099
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Orange
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
Contact: Robert Garcia
714.744.7231
PREPARED BY:
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Ms. Kristen Bogue
949.472.3505
December 2019
JN 166516
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 Revisions to Information Presented in the Draft IS/MND ......................................... 2-1
3.0 Response to Comments .............................................................................................. 3-1
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................... 4-1
Appendices
F-1 Revised Hydrology and Water Quality Reports
F-2 Revised Traffic Reports
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 1-1 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant (herein referenced as the “project”) is located at
202 South Main Street in the City of Orange (City), County of Orange, California. Regionally, the
site is located approximately 0.50-mile north of State Route 22 (SR-22) and 0.65-mile east of
State Route 57 (SR-57). Locally, the site is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection
of West Almond Avenue and South Main Street. The project encompasses approximately 0.95 -
acre and is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 390-264-28. The project involves the demolition
of an existing 8,579-square foot structure and the construction of a one-story, 4,563-square foot
Chick-fil-A restaurant building with a double drive-thru lane and associated surface parking,
landscaping, and utilities.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed project.
The Draft IS/MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2019089099) was made available for public review
and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The public review commenced on
August 29, 2019 and concluded on September 27, 2019. The Draft IS/MND and supporting
attachments were available for review by the general public at the following locations:
• City of Orange, Community Development Department, Planning Division: 300 East
Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866;
• City of Orange City Clerk: 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866;
• Orange Public Library and History Center: 407 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA
92866;
• El Modena Branch Library: 380 South Hewes Street, Orange, CA 92866;
• Taft Branch Library: 740 East Taft Avenue, Orange, CA 92865; and
• City of Orange, Community Development Department, Planning Division Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/292/Project-NoticesRelated-Environmental-Doc.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 1-2 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-1 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
2.0 REVISIONS TO INFORMATION PRESENTED
IN THE DRAFT IS/MND
INTRODUCTION
On August 29, 2019, the City of Orange circulated the Draft IS/MND (State Clearinghouse No.
2019089099) for a 30-day public review period to responsible and trustee agencies and
interested parties. Since issuance of the Draft IS/MND, the project Applicant has submitted
modifications to the proposed project. Potential impacts resulting from modifications to the
proposed project are discussed herein. As presented within this secti on, these revisions
represent modifications to the previously analyzed project description. The revisions do not
change the conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND and the revised project would not create
any new significant impacts or the need for additional mitigation.
REVISED PROJECT
The revised project addresses several design review concerns of the City, most notably, the
location of the restaurant in the rear of the site (with the parking lot in front) and potential drive-
thru queuing impacts on the public right-of-way along Almond Avenue. As such, the revised
project involves relocating the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant from the southern portion of the
site to the northeast corner of the site (adjacent to the Almond Avenue and Main Street
intersection) and redesigning the drive-thru lanes; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Revised Site Plan. Main
components of the revised project are described below.
Proposed Building. The proposed building would be a one story, 4,527-square foot Chick-fil-A
restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru. The restaurant would have a traditional layout with an
indoor dining area (104 seats), serving/ordering area, kitchen area, service area, and an indoor
play area for children. No outdoor seating is proposed. The kitchen area includes a freezer, a
cooler, stacked convention ovens, and preparation and finishing tables. The restaurant would
also include office space for managerial purposes, a multi-purpose room, and restrooms. The
restaurant’s trash enclosure is proposed in the western parking area adjacent to the drive-thru
entrance.
Parking. The revised site plan would provide 49 vehicle parking spaces (47 standard spaces
and two handicap spaces), a motorcycle parking area, and bicycle parking storage at the front
of the restaurant. Generally, parking would be provided along the southern project boundary
and in the center of the site where the drive-thru lanes wrap around; refer to Exhibit 2-1.
Drive-Thru Lanes. Based on Exhibit 2-1, vehicles entering either of the two proposed 12-foot
drive-thru lanes (which merge into one 12-foot lane) would enter from the southwest corner and
exit from the eastern half of the site. The proposed drive-thru lanes would wrap around the
central parking area in a clockwise direction from the southeast corner, to the north and east
along Almond Avenue, and southerly along the western side of the proposed building to the
pick-up window. The menu boards and speaker boxes would be located in the northwest
portion of the site adjacent to Almond Avenue. Overall, the drive-thru would provide stacking for
up to 21 vehicles from drive-thru entry to the pick-up window.
Exhibit 2-1
Revised Site Plan
NOT TO SCALE
12/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: CRHO Archicture Interior Planning, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-3 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
Site Access and Circulation. Access to the project site would be provided via one unsignalized
two-way driveway along Main Street and one unsignalized egress-only driveway along Almond
Avenue.
Pedestrian pathways are proposed within the central parking area and across the drive-thru
lanes near the pick-up window and southern restaurant entrance. Direct pedestrian access
from Almond Avenue and Main Street to the proposed restaurant is also provided.
Landscaping. Exhibit 2-2, Revised Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed landscaping for the
revised site plan. As shown, the 18 existing queen and fan palms along the site perimeter
would be removed. However, these perimeter trees would be replaced with ornamental trees,
shrubs, and groundcover along the site perimeter, on all sides of the proposed restaurant, within
the parking lot area, and along the drive-thru pathway. Trees and shrubs would include
strawberry trees, southern magnolias, crape myrtle, Saratoga laurel, agave, fountain grass,
kangaroo paw, fern pine, and various lily species, among others. The total landscaped area
would be approximately 8,164 square feet.
Storm Drain System. As shown on Exhibit 2-1, an underground infiltration system would be
installed in the southwest parking area on-site. Stormwater would flow toward three 24- by 24-
inch grated inlets on-site into the underground infiltration system and be filtered of debris and
trash on-site. For overflows, a bypass system would be installed that would outlet to an existing
12-inch storm drain at the southwest portion of the project site, which would then flow off-site
and ultimately discharge into the City’s storm drain system to the south.
Exhibit 2-2
Revised Landscape Plan
NOT TO SCALE
12/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: Hourian Associates, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-5 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED PROJECT
Table 2-1, Previous and Revised Site Plan Comparison, provides a comparison of the
previously analyzed site plan to the revised site plan.
Table 2-1
Previous and Revised Site Plan Comparison
Project Feature Previous Site Plan (Draft IS/MND) Revised Site Plan (Final IS/MND)
Restaurant
Size 4,563 square feet 4,527 square feet
Seats 80 seats 104 seats
Location southern portion northeast corner
Building Height 22 feet 22 feet
Parking Spaces
48 spaces
(46 standard [including one electric] and 2
handicap)
49 spaces
(47 standard [including two electric] and
two handicap)
Bicycle Storage 12-bicycle rack at front of restaurant 12-bicycle rack at front of restaurant
Drive Thru-Lanes
Location southeast/southern western/northern/eastern
Stacking/Queuing 17 vehicles 21 vehicles
Landscaped Area 8,363 square feet 8,164 square feet
Tree Removal 8 trees 18 trees
Pedestrian Access Striped pathways from Main Street and
Almond Avenue to the restaurant building
Direct access from Almond Avenue and
Main Street; striped pathways from parking
areas to building
Site Access Two full access driveways at Main Street and
Almond Avenue
One full access driveway at Main Street
and one egress-only driveway at Almond
Avenue
Overall, when compared to the previous site plan, the revised site plan would develop a slightly
smaller restaurant building (36 fewer square feet) with 24 additional seats located in the
northeast corner of the site. The drive-thru lanes would wrap around the central parking area in
the northern portion of the site (rather than the southern) and provide four additional vehicle
stacking spaces compared to the previous site plan. The revised site plan would also provide
one additional parking space on-site and convert the Almond Avenue driveway from a full
access driveway to an egress-only driveway. The revised landscape plan involves removing all
18 site perimeter palms (compared to eight trees removed under the previous plan) but would
replace them with new ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
All previously identified agreements, permits, and approvals identified in the Draft IS/MND
remain unchanged.
IMPACTS RESULTING FROM MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
Potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed modifications to the previous site
plan are presented below. Overall, the proposed modifications would result in little or no
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-6 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
discernible environmental effects not previously considered in the Draft IS/MND, and do not
substantially or fundamentally alter the conclusions or findings of the Draft IS/MND relative to
the project’s potential environmental effects or proposed mitigation measures.
Implementation of these project modifications would not result in any new improvements outside
of the project boundaries and proposed grading activities would be similar to the original project.
Further, the proposed modifications would result in less building square footage. As such, the
following environmental topical areas would not change as a result of the project modifications:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources;
• Geology and Soils;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
• Mineral Resources;
• Population and Housing;
• Public Services;
• Recreation;
• Tribal Cultural Resources; and
• Utilities and Service Systems.
The topical areas of Aesthetics, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise,
and Transportation/Traffic are discussed in further detail below.
Aesthetics
The Draft IS/MND determined that the proposed project would result in less than significant
construction and operational impacts related to aesthetics and light/glare.
Construction
The revised project would involve demolition, site preparation, and construction activities similar
to those analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. The slightly smaller restaurant building, additional
parking space, and redesigned drive-thru lanes would not require a change in construction
activities. Thus, short-term construction activities associated with the revised project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or
result in any significant light/glare impacts beyond those analyzed in the Draft IS/MND.
Operations
The revised project does not propose major changes to the restaurant’s size, operation,
architectural building elements, height, or landscaping. The restaurant building would slightly
decrease in size by 36 square feet. These nominal modifications would not result in any new
aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the building would remain 22 feet in height with the same
proposed architectural building elements as previously analyzed in the Draft IS/MND, including
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-7 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
brick veneer, dark bronze parapets, awning and other metal storefront features, and gray,
charcoal, and sand colored stucco, along with restaurant identification signage.
While the revised site plan would remove all 18 site perimeter trees on-site (compared to eight
removed trees under the previous site plan), new trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be
planted along the site and building perimeters, within the parking lot area, and along the drive-
thru pathways; refer to Exhibit 2-2.
The relocated building at the northeast corner of the site would make it a prominent structure at
the intersection of Main Street and Almond Avenue. This redesign would alter the visual
character of the project site in a beneficial manner to more closely meet the intended goals of
the Southwest Project Area Design Standards for the South Main/La Veta Thematic District.
For example, the revised site plan design provides street presence along Main Street and
Almond Avenue with the relocated building adjacent to the main roadways and the parking lot
placed in the rear of the site. This creates a more pedestrian- and street-oriented environment
with direct linkages to transit and pedestrian sidewalks within the mixed-use designated area.
The relocated building would also be more consistent with existing buildings in the project area
that are located along the street frontages (rather than the rear). In addition, by placing the
restaurant adjacent to existing sidewalks, the potential for on-site pedestrian/vehicle conflicts
would be reduced compared to the previous site plan which required patrons to walk across the
parking lot from the public sidewalk to enter the restaurant. As further analyzed under ‘Land
Use and Planning,’ the revised site plan would remain consistent with the General Plan, Zoning
Code, and Southwest Project Area.
As on-site lighting and hours of operations of the Chick-fil-A restaurant would remain the same,
operational light and glare impacts associated with the revised site plan would be similarly less
than significant.
Overall, the revised site plan would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse
aesthetic/light and glare impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft IS/MND.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Draft IS/MND concluded that development of the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts upon implementation of existing regulations, proposed drainage
improvements, and best management practices (BMPs).
Construction
Similar to the previous site plan, construction activities associated with the revised site plan
would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater
Discharges, which includes conditions and requirements established by the City related to the
control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff. Additionally, the Final Priority Water Quality
Management Plan (Revised WQMP), prepared by Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc. and
dated November 14, 2019, includes required construction-related BMPs that would reduce
water quality impacts in this regard; refer to Appendix F-1, Revised Hydrology and Water
Quality Reports.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-8 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
Operations
As detailed in the Revised WQMP, the revised site plan would require non-structural best
management practices (BMPs), such as education materials for property owners, tenants, and
occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; BMP maintenance;
common area litter control; employee training; common area catch basin inspection; and street
sweeping private streets and parking lots. Structural BMPs detailed in the revised WQMP
include providing storm drain system stenciling and drainage; designing and constructing trash
and waste storage areas; using efficient irrigation systems and landscaping designs; and
incorporating wash water control for food preparation areas.
Additionally, the Drainage Study (Revised Drainage Study), prepared by Joseph C. Truxaw &
Associates, Inc., dated November 14, 2019, analyzes the revised site plan’s impacts related to
hydrology; refer to Appendix F-1. The revised site plan would similarly install an underground
infiltration system sized and designed to capture stormwater flow in underground storage tanks
on-site. According to the Revised Drainage Study, and as detailed in Table 2-2, Proposed
Drainage Comparison, under the 25-year storm event, the revised site plan would result in a
reduction of 0.20 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stormwater flow (5.7 percent decrease)
compared to existing conditions.
In comparison, the previous site plan would result in a slight increase of 0.03 cfs of stormwater
flow (0.9 percent increase) compared to existing conditions during the 25-year storm event.
Therefore, the revised site plan would slightly improve on-site drainage compared to the
previous site plan. Overall, the revised project would similarly be subject to existing
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (including approval
of the Revised WQMP), the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan, and Municipal Code
Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges.
Table 2-2
Proposed Drainage Comparison
25-Year Storm Event
Existing Conditions Post-Development Conditions1 Change
Previous Site Plan
(Draft IS/MND) 3.49 cfs 3.52 cfs +0.03 cfs
Revised Site Plan
(Final IS/MND) 3.49 cfs 3.29 cfs -0.20 cfs
Notes: cfs = cubic feet per second
1. Post-development conditions would only result in runoff when flows exceed the capacity of the underground infiltration system. Typical dry flows would not
result in any discharge.
Sources:
Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Drainage Study, dated June 26, 2018; refer to Draft IS/MND Appendix 8.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Reports.
Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., Drainage Study, dated November 14, 2019; refer to Appendix F-1.
Thus, the modifications to the previous project would not result in any new, different, or
potentially adverse hydrology and water quality impacts not previously considered and
addressed in the Draft IS/MND.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-9 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
Land Use and Planning
The Draft IS/MND determined that potential impacts to land use and planning would be less
than significant.
General Plan Consistency
The nominal decrease in building size from 4,563 square feet to 4,527 square feet would result
in a similar 0.11 floor area ratio (FAR) as analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. Thus, the revised site
plan would similarly comply with the maximum FAR limit of 1.0 for the proposed General
Commercial (CG) land use designation.
The revised site plan would also help meet several General Plan policies more closely than the
previous site plan. For example, Land Use Element Policy 1.6 encourages minimizing the
effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods, Policy
2.6 promotes linkages in and around mixed-use areas using a multi-modal circulation network,
and Policy 3.3 supports improved vehicular, pedestrian, and visual connections between
commercial areas and the rest of the community. The relocation of the proposed restaurant to
the northeast corner of the site would improve pedestrian and visual connections between the
restaurant and passing pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles traveling along adjacent sidewalks
and roadways. The relocated restaurant would have entrances along its northern and eastern
sides open to the pedestrian sidewalks along Almond Avenue and Main Street, respectively, as
well as bicycle storage at the front of the building. Additionally, the redesigned drive-thru lanes
would provide additional stacking space for a total of 21 vehicles and redirect drive-thru queuing
to occur on-site within the parking lot rather than potentially spilling over onto Almond Avenue
as previously proposed; refer to Exhibit 2-1.
Additionally, Circulation and Mobility Element Policy 1.7 supports the consolidation of driveways
along roadways that provide access to commercial uses to minimize side street interruption and
promote smooth traffic flows. The conversion of the Almond Avenue driveway into an egress-
only point eliminates the potential for drive-thru queuing and overflow onto Almond Avenue to
ensure continued traffic flow.
Urban Design Element Policy 1.5 emphasizes street-oriented development with parking located
behind or next to buildings rather than in front, and Policy 2.1 promotes the transformation of
corridors, such as Main Street, into active, pedestrian-friendly streets that balance auto, transit,
and pedestrian mobility. The revised site plan would allow for more street presence by
relocating the restaurant to face the sidewalks along Main Street and Almond Avenue and
placing the parking lot in the southern (rear) portion of the site. Pedestrians would also have
direct access to the Chick-fil-A restaurant with northern and eastern entrances opening directly
to the adjacent sidewalks.
Zoning Code Consistency
Similar to the site plan analyzed in the Draft IS/MND, the revised project would be consistent
with all General Business (C-2) zoning requirements. Minor site plan modifications include an
additional parking space (49 total spaces) and reduced setbacks from Main Street and Almond
Avenue compared to the previous site plan. The relocated restaurant building would have an
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-10 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
approximately 27-foot front yard setback from Almond Avenue and 18-foot side yard setback
from Main Street, which meets the 10-foot minimum setback requirements for C-2 zones.
Additionally, the revised landscape plan illustrated on Exhibit 2-2 would be required to meet the
C-2 zoning landscaping requirements. As detailed in Draft IS/MND Table 4.10-3, City of Orange
Zoning Code Consistency Analysis, C-2 zoned properties are required to landscape the entire
front yard setback area or at least a ten-foot minimum planter width, whichever is greater;
screen parking areas visible from public streets with five-gallon shrubs at three feet on center;
screen trash enclosures with a minimum four-foot wide landscaped planter on at least two sides;
and plant trees throughout the project site within all parking areas and along all property lines
with large tree specimens encouraged along the street frontages and shrubs encouraged
throughout the project site. As shown on Exhibit 2-2, landscaping would be planted along the
project’s front and side yards adjacent to Main Street and Almond Avenue, including southern
magnolia trees, New Zealand flax, coast rosemary, agave, variegated flax lily, black anther flax
lily, and fountain grass. The proposed trees would be 36-inch boxes and the shrubs would be
five gallons in size and appropriately spaced to screen the parking area. Saratoga laurel trees
are also proposed along Almond Avenue as street trees, consistent with the Southwest Project
Area Design Standards. Additionally, the proposed trash enclosure located in the central
portion of the parking lot would be screened with coast rosemary, fern pine, fortnight lily, and
south African jasmine vines on two sides of the enclosure. As illustrated, additional trees and
shrubs, including strawberry trees, crape myrtle trees, kangaroo paw, and canyon prince wild
rye, are proposed along the site and building perimeters and are randomly scattered throughout
the parking lot areas.
Southwest Project Area Consistency
Based on feedback provided by the City’s Design Review Committee, the Applicant prepared
the revised site plan to better meet the Southwest Project Area Design Standards. Specifically,
the proposed building was relocated to the front of the project site at the intersection of Main
Street and Almond Avenue to enhance the project’s overall street presence and pedestrian-
oriented design, and the parking lot was placed in the rear. Pedestrian access would be short
and direct, with restaurant doors accessed from both Main Street and Almond Avenue; refer to
Exhibit 2-1. As stated above, the relocated building would also be more consistent with existing
buildings in the project area that are located along the street frontages (rather than the rear). In
addition, by placing the restaurant adjacent to existing sidewalks, potential for on-site
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts would be reduced compared to the previous site plan, which
required patrons to walk across the parking lot from the public sidewalks to enter the restaurant.
The parking lot and drive-thru lanes would also be shielded from public view on Almond Avenue
by dense landscaping on-site consisting of 36-inch box southern magnolia trees, one-gallon
stonecrop groundcover that grows to approximately one foot in height and five-gallon coast
rosemary that grows to approximately four to six feet in height at maturity. Saratoga laurel trees
(24-inch boxes) are also proposed as street trees along Almond Avenue, which meets the
Southwest Project Area Design Standards requirement related to secondary street frontage
zones; refer to Exhibit 2-2.
While the relocated building would result in reduced setbacks, the revised site plan would
continue to meet the applicable setback requirements. As detailed in the Southwest Project
Area Design Standards, primary street frontage zones (including Main Street) are required to
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-11 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
provide a 16-foot setback from street curb to the building wall. The revised site plan would
provide an approximate 18-foot setback from Main Street.
Overall, the revised site plan is intended to better align with the goals of the Southwest Project
Area and the South Main/La Veta Thematic District. As such, the revised site plan would be
consistent with the Southwest Project Area Design Standards and would not result in any new
significant impacts.
Requested Entitlements
Implementation of the revised project would similarly require a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Minor Site Plan
Review, and Tree Removal Permit, as analyzed in the Draft IS/MND.
Overall, the revised site plan involves several project modifications that would result in either
nominal or beneficial impacts related to land use and planning. No new, different, or potentially
adverse land use impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft IS/MND would
occur.
Noise
The Draft IS/MND determined that the project’s construction and operational noise impacts
would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Construction
While the revised site plan would relocate the proposed building to the northeast corner of the
site, construction activities on-site would result in similar noise impacts. Construction of the
revised project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Noise Control,
which limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day
except for Sundays and Federal holidays, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
Sundays and Federal holidays. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would
require construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers
and other State required noise attenuation devices. Thus, similar to the previous site plan, a
less than significant noise impact would result from construction activities associated with the
revised project.
Operations
Operational noise impacts from mobile and stationary noise sources associated with the revised
project would also be less than significant. The revised project would construct a slightly
smaller Chick-fil-A restaurant and generate approximately 1,599 average daily trips (ADT); refer
to ‘Transportation/Traffic.’ In comparison, the previous site plan would generate approximately
1,612 ADT. As such, the revised project would generate a nominal decrease in ambient noise
conditions from mobile sources. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed Chick-
fil-A restaurant include mechanical equipment, delivery trucks, parking lot activities, and drive-
thru operations. These operational activities would occur similar to the previous site plan
analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. However, the revised site plan relocates the drive-thru lanes
towards the northern portion of the site (rather than the southern). Therefore, the drive-thru
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-12 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
speaker boxes would be located along the northern boundary of the site near Almond Avenue;
refer to Exhibit 2-1. Nevertheless, noise generated by active drive-thru operations would largely
be masked by vehicular traffic noise along Almond Avenue and Main Street. The speaker
boxes would also include volume control technology that adjusts the outbound volume based on
outdoor ambient noise levels. Thus, similar to the previous site plan, operational noise impacts
associated with the revised project’s relocated drive-thru operations would be less than
significant.
Overall, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse noise
impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft IS/MND.
Transportation/Traffic
The Draft IS/MND concluded that construction and operations of the proposed project would
result in less than significant transportation impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-1.
Trip Generation
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A
Main Street Project, Orange, California (Revised Traffic Impact Analysis), dated November 13,
2019; refer to Appendix F-2, Revised Traffic Reports.
The revised project would construct a slightly smaller Chick-fil-A restaurant with 36 fewer square
feet, which is a nominal 0.8 percent decrease in building size. Thus, as detailed in the Revised
Traffic Impact Analysis, the revised project would generate approximately 1,599 ADT, with 93
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 74 trips during the p.m. peak hour; refer to Table 2-3,
Revised Project Trip Generation. In comparison, this would be a decrease in ADT compared to
the previous site plan, which generated 1,612 ADT.
Table 2-3
Revised Project Trip Generation
ITE Land Use Code/Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Factors:
934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru
(TE/1,000 square feet)1 470.95 20.50 19.69 40.19 16.99 15.68 32.67
Generation Forecast:
Chick-fil-A Restaurant with Drive-Thru (4,527
square feet) 2,132 93 89 182 77 71 148
Pass-By (Daily 25%; AM 49%; PM 50%)2 -533 -46 -43 -89 -39 -35 -74
Subtotal 1,599 47 46 93 38 36 74
Total Traffic Generation Forecast 1,599 47 46 93 38 36 74
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-13 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
Table 2-3 (continued)
Revised Project Trip Generation
Notes:
1. TE/1,000 square feet = trip end per thousand square feet
2. Pass-By adjustments account for trips that are already in the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets (i.e. Main Street and Almond
Avenue) and will stop as they pass by the project site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination.
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis Chick-fil-A Main Street Project, Orange, California, November 13,
2019; refer to Appendix F-2.
The revised site plan would modify the Almond Avenue driveway into an egress-only driveway,
which slightly modifies the project’s traffic distribution pattern; refer to Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis Figure 5-1, Project Traffic Distribution Pattern. However, similar to the previous site
plan, the revised site plan would not result in any significant traffic impacts at the study
intersections or roadway segments under existing conditions and opening year; refer to Revised
Traffic Impact Analysis Tables 8-1, Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity
Analysis, 8-2, Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, 9-1, Year
2021 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, and 9-2, Year 2021 Roadway Segment Level of
Service Summary. No new impacts would result and no new mitigation is required.
Drive-Thru Queuing
LLG also prepared the Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation & Queuing Management
Plan – Chick-fil-A Main Street, Orange (Revised Circulation Management Plan), dated
November 14, 2019; refer to Appendix F-2.
The Revised Circulation Management Plan evaluated drive-thru queuing impacts of the revised
site plan. The relocation of the building and redesign of the drive-thru lanes would increase
available stacking in the drive-thru lanes by four additional vehicles. Therefore, based on the
study sites analyzed in the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, the 85th percentile expected
queues (six to 15 vehicles) and 95th percentile expected queues (15 to 17 vehicles) can be
accommodated within the redesigned drive-thru lanes that provide 21 stacking spaces; refer to
Exhibit 2-3, Revised Circulation Plan. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, a bypass lane is also provided
adjacent to the end of the drive-thru lane to allow employees to distribute orders to one or more
vehicles directly behind the vehicle at the pick-up window, should the front vehicle have a large
order that takes additional time to complete. Further, it should be noted that the east-west drive
aisle along the front of the restaurant is not considered a fire lane, therefore, queuing within the
drive aisle is acceptable. Directional signage near the drive-thru exit would indicate an exit via
Almond Avenue as an option as well. Compared to the previous drive-thru design, the
redesigned drive-thru lanes would accommodate four additional vehicles, direct overflow
vehicles to queue within the parking lot, and eliminate potential queueing impacts on Almond
Avenue. Thus, the revised site plan would result in a beneficial impact regarding on-site
circulation and drive-thru queuing.
Exhibit 2-3
Revised Circulation Plan
NOT TO SCALE
12/19 | JN 166516
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1858-18
Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2019.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-15 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
The Draft IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires implementation of an on-
site transportation circulation plan. As stated, on-site circulation impacts were revaluated in the
Revised Circulation Management Plan which determined that queuing beyond 20 vehicles
would require implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1. As such, Mitigation Measure TRA-
1 is revised as shown below and also reflected in Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Additions are shown in double-underline and deletions are shown in
strikeout.
TRA-1 The applicant shall implement the proposed on-site transportation circulation plan
detailed in the Updated On-Site Transportation Circulation & Queuing Management
Plan – Chick-fil-A Main Street, Orange, dated November 14May 20, 2019 and
prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, which requires Chick-fil-A staff to
monitor vehicle queuing in the drive-thru lanes to ensure queued vehicles do not
block vehicular circulation within the parking lot and at the Almond Avenue driveway.
Should queueing occur beyond the available vehicle storage (2017 vehicles), team
members shall go out to the drive-thru lanes and take orders with hand held ordering
and payment devices to increase ordering and payment efficiency and reduce
queues. Should the vehicle queue extend onto Almond Avenue, Chick-fil-A staff
shall direct customers to utilize the Main Street access to enter the drive -thru lane.
Chick-fil-A management shall also direct staff to park in the stalls closest to the drive-
thru entrance along Almond Avenue, allowing stacking, if needed.
This change is a minor update to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 for clarification and consistency
with the revised on-site transportation circulation plan and does not reflect any new impacts
associated with the revised site plan.
Site Access
The revised site plan converts the two-way driveway along Almond Avenue into an egress-only
driveway; the two-way driveway along Main Street would remain unchanged. As detailed in
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Table 10-1, Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service
Summary, the two project driveways would operate at adequate levels of service during peak
hours. Additionally, the conversion of the Almond Avenue driveway into egress-only would
lessen potential traffic impacts on the secondary street and redirect entry to the site onto Main
Street.
Overall, the revised project would not result in any new, different or potentially adverse
transportation impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Draft IS/MND.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 2-16 Revisions to Information Presented
in the Draft IS/MND
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 3-1 Response to Comments
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The following is a list of the persons, firms, or agencies that submitted comments on the Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) during the public review period:
Comment
Letter
No.
Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
1
Scott Morgan, Director
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
September 30, 2019
The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions
of the comment letter.
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL 1-916-445-0613 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov www.opr.ca.gov
*DYLQ1HZVRP
*RYHUQRU
.DWH*RUGRQ
'LUHFWRU
6HSWHPEHU
5REHUW*DUFLD
2UDQJH&RXQW\
(&KDSPDQ$YHQXH
2UDQJH&$
6XEMHFW &KLFNILO$'ULYH7KUX5HVWDXUDQW3URMHFW
6&+
'HDU5REHUW*DUFLD
7KH6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVHVXEPLWWHGWKHDERYHQDPHG01'WRVHOHFWHGVWDWHDJHQFLHVIRUUHYLHZ7KH
UHYLHZSHULRGFORVHGRQ DQGQRVWDWHDJHQFLHVVXEPLWWHGFRPPHQWVE\WKDWGDWH7KLVOHWWHU
DFNQRZOHGJHVWKDW\RXKDYHFRPSOLHGZLWKWKH6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVHUHYLHZUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUGUDIW
HQYLURQPHQWDOGRFXPHQWVSXUVXDQWWRWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FWSOHDVHYLVLW
KWWSV FHTDQHWRSUFDJRY IRUIXOOGHWDLOVDERXW\RXUSURMHFW
3OHDVHFDOOWKH6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVHDW LI\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKH
HQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZSURFHVV,I\RXKDYHDTXHVWLRQDERXWWKHDERYHQDPHGSURMHFWSOHDVHUHIHUWRWKH
WHQGLJLW6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVHQXPEHUZKHQFRQWDFWLQJWKLVRIILFH
6LQFHUHO\
6FRWW0RUJDQ
'LUHFWRU6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH
COMMENT LETTER NO. 1
1-1
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 3-3 Response to Comments
Response No. 1
Mr. Scott Morgan, Director
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
September 30, 2019
1-1 The commenter indicates that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft IS/MND to
selected State agencies for review, and that the comment period for the Draft IS/MND
concluded on September 27, 2019 for State agencies. The comment indicates that
the lead agency complied with the review requirements for draft environmental
documents pursuant to CEQA, and that no State agencies have submitted comments
to the State Clearinghouse. As such, the comment does not provide specific
comments regarding information presented in the Draft IS/MND and no further
response is necessary.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 3-4 Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes
an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This
requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The
reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Checklist, has been prepared for the proposed Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant (the
“project”). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification
that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored
and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been
implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3)
retention of records in the City’s Chick-fil-A Drive-Thru Restaurant project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for
monitoring the project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to
monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation
measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place
and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring
reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being
properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to
ensure adequate implementation.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and
generally involves the following steps:
• The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of
compliance.
• Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for
including specified mitigation measures.
• Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate.
• Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of
mitigation measures.
• Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted
and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring
compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as
field inspection reports and plan review.
• The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an
annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 4-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or
conditions of permits/approvals.
Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be
permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment
of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements,
and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to
satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 4-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist
Number
Standard Condition/
Condition of Approval/
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1
Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit,
the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive
dust emissions shall be controlled by
regular watering or other dust prevention
measures, as specified in the
SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In
addition, the City Engineer shall confirm
that the Grading Plans and
specifications comply with SCAQMD
Rule 402, which requires
implementation of dust suppression
techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off-site. The
following measures shall be
implemented to reduce short-term
fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive
receptors:
• All active portions of the
construction site shall be watered
during daily construction activities
and when dust is observed
migrating from the project site to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Applicant;
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
City Engineer
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Applicant shall submit a
watering plan to control fugitive
dust;
• Pave or apply water every three
hours during daily construction
activities or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging
areas. More frequent watering shall
occur if dust is observed migrating
from the site during site disturbance;
• Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt,
or other dusty material shall be
enclosed, covered, or watered twice
daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall
be applied;
• All grading and excavation
operations shall be suspended
when wind speeds exceed 25 miles
per hour;
• Disturbed areas shall be replaced
with ground cover or paved
immediately after construction is
completed in the affected area;
• Track-out devices such as gravel
bed track-out aprons (3 inches
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per
lane and edged by rock berm or row
of stakes) shall be installed to
reduce mud/dirt trackout from
unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively, a wheel washer shall
be used at truck exit routes;
• On-site vehicle speeds shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour;
• All material transported off-site shall
be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust prior to
departing the job site; and
• Trucks associated with soil-hauling
activities shall avoid residential
streets and utilize City-designated
truck routes to the extent feasible.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1
In the event that vegetation and tree
removal should occur between January
15 and September 15, the project
applicant shall retain a qualified biologist
to conduct a nesting bird survey no more
than three days prior to commencement
of construction activities. The biologist
conducting the clearance survey shall
document the negative results if no
Applicant;
Qualified
Biologist;
Contractor
Prior to
Construction/
During
Construction
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/During
Construction
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
active bird nests are observed on the
project site or within the vicinity during
the clearance survey with a brief letter
report, submitted to the City of Orange
Community Development Department
prior to construction, indicating that no
impacts to active bird nests would occur
before construction can proceed. If an
active avian nest is discovered during
the pre-construction clearance survey,
construction activities shall stay outside
of a 300-foot buffer around the active
nest. For listed and raptor species, this
buffer shall be 500 feet. A biological
monitor shall be present to delineate the
boundaries of the buffer area and to
monitor the active nest to ensure that
nesting behavior is not adversely
affected by the construction activity.
Prior to the commencement of
construction activities and the issuance
of any permits, results of the pre-
construction survey and any subsequent
monitoring shall be provided to the City
of Orange Community Development
Department, California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate
agencies.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the Applicant shall provide written
evidence to the Community
Applicant;
Qualified
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
Grading
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Development Department that the
Applicant has retained a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology (National
Park Service 1983) to respond on an as-
needed basis to address unanticipated
archaeological discoveries.
In the event that archaeological
resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, work in the
immediate area shall be halted, and the
qualified archaeologist shall be
contacted immediately to evaluate the
resources. If the archaeologist
determines that they are unique
archaeological resources as defined by
Public Resources Code Section
21083.2, the archaeologist shall make
recommendations on the treatment of
the resources. The recommendations
shall be developed in accordance with
applicable provisions of Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2 and
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4.
The Applicant shall follow all
recommendations made by the
archaeologist. The final written report
containing site forms, site significance,
and mitigation measures shall be
submitted immediately to the
Archaeologist;
Contractor
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Community Development Department.
All information regarding site locations,
Native American human remains, and
associated funerary objects shall be
provided in a separate confidential
addendum and not be made available
for public disclosure. The final written
report shall be submitted to the
appropriate regional archaeological
Information Center within three months
after work has been completed.
CUL-2
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the Applicant shall provide written
evidence to the Community
Development Department that the
Applicant has retained a qualified
paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or
related discipline with an emphasis in
paleontology and demonstrated
experience and competence in
paleontological research, fieldwork,
reporting, and curation) to respond on an
as-needed basis to address
unanticipated archaeological
discoveries.
In the event that paleontological
resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, all
construction activities in the vicinity of
the find shall halt until the qualified
paleontologist identifies the
Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist;
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Earthwork
Activities
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
paleontological significance of the find
and recommends a course of action.
Construction shall not resume until the
site paleontologist states in writing that
the proposed construction activities
would not significantly damage
paleontological resources.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant shall provide written
evidence to the Community
Development Department that the
applicant has retained a qualified Phase
II/Site Characterization Specialist to
perform soil sampling of all export and
import soils to confirm no hazardous
materials contamination is present.
Should contamination be present above
regulatory thresholds, use of those soils
shall be conducted in accordance with
existing Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations.
Applicant;
Qualified Phase
II/Site
Characterization
Specialist
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit
HAZ-2
Grading plans, approved by the City
Engineer, shall indicate that prior to and
during structure demolition, a licensed
asbestos technician shall perform
abatement planning, monitoring,
oversight, and reporting. Visual
inspection clearance shall be completed
by the licensed asbestos technician prior
demolition to ensure asbestos materials
have been removed from the structure.
Applicant;
Contractor;
Licensed
Asbestos
Technician
Prior To and
During
Structure
Demolition
City Engineer
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit; Prior
To and
During
Structure
Demolition
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HAZ-3
Grading plans, approved by the City
Engineer, shall indicate that prior to, and
during structure demolition, a lead
certified professional shall conduct in-
place management work of lead based
materials surfaces reported above the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Limit of
Detection and are scheduled for
demolition, and ensure proper
preparation, abatement, and disposal.
Applicant; Lead
Certified
Professional;
Contractor
Prior To and
During
Structure
Demolition
City Engineer
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit; Prior
To and
During
Structure
Demolition
NOISE
NOI-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Orange Public Works
Department that the project complies
with the following:
• Construction contracts specify that
all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained
mufflers and other state required
noise attenuation devices.
• Construction haul routes shall be
designed to avoid noise sensitive
uses (e.g., residences,
convalescent homes, etc.), to the
extent feasible.
Applicant;
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Construction
Public Works
Department
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading
Permit/
During
Construction
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• During construction, stationary
construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive noise
receivers.
• Construction activities shall not take
place outside of the allowable hours
specified by the City's OMC, Section
8.24.050 (7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on any day except for Sunday or a
Federal holiday, or between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise
generated outside of the hours
specified are subject to the noise
standards identified in City of
Orange Municipal Code, Section
8.24.040).
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
TRA-1
The applicant shall implement the
proposed on-site transportation
circulation plan detailed in the Updated
On-Site Transportation Circulation &
Queuing Management Plan – Chick-fil-A
Main Street, Orange, dated November
14, 2019 and prepared by Linscott Law
& Greenspan Engineers, which requires
Chick-fil-A staff to monitor vehicle
queuing in the drive-thru lanes to ensure
queued vehicles do not block vehicular
Applicant During
Operations
Community
Development
Department
During
Operations
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
circulation within the parking lot. Should
queueing occur beyond the available
vehicle storage (21 vehicles), team
members shall go out to the drive-thru
lanes and take orders with hand held
ordering and payment devices to
increase ordering and payment
efficiency and reduce queues.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1
A Native American monitor from a tribe
who is ancestrally related to the project
area (i.e., Native American Monitors of
Gabrieleno Ancestry) shall be retained
by the applicant to be on-site to monitor
all project-related, ground-disturbing
construction activities (e.g. pavement
removal, auguring, boring, grading,
excavation, potholing, trenching,
grubbing, and weed abatement) and
during all soil movement of previously
undisturbed soils. The monitor must be
approved by the Tribal Representatives
of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) and will be
represented on-site during the
construction phases that involve any
ground-disturbing activities. The Native
American monitor(s) are required to
complete monitoring logs on a daily
basis. The logs will provide descriptions
of the daily activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil,
Applicant;
Native American
Monitor
During
Ground-
Disturbing
Activities and
All Movement
of Previously
Undisturbed
Soils
Community
Development
Department
During
Ground-
Disturbing
Activities and
All Movement
of Previously
Undisturbed
Soils
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and any cultural materials. Should there
be any hazardous concerns; the
monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency
Response certification. In addition, the
monitor(s) shall be required to provide
insurance certificates, including liability
insurance, for any archaeological
resource(s) encountered during grading
and excavation activities pertinent to the
provisions outlined in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
on-site monitoring shall end when either
the project site grading and excavation
activities are complete or the Tribal
Representative and monitor have
indicated the site has a low potential for
archaeological resources.
TCR-2
All archaeological resources unearthed
by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist
and Native American monitor. If the
resources are Native American in origin,
the Tribe shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and
curation of these resources. Typically,
the Tribe will request reburial or
preservation for educational purposes.
If a resource is determined by the
qualified archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or is a
Applicant;
Qualified
Archaeologist;
Native American
Monitor
During
Construction
Community
Development
Department
During
Construction
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
“unique archaeological resource”
pursuant to Public Resource Code
(PRC) Section 21083.2(g), the qualified
archaeologist shall comply with
Mitigation Measure CUL-1. If the
resource(s) are not “unique” then no
further mitigation would be required.
TCR-3
Prior to the start of ground-disturbing
activities, the applicant shall designate a
feasible location within the project
footprint for the respectful reburial of any
human remains and/or ceremonial
objects discovered on-site.
In the event of the discovery of human
remains which are determined by the
County Coroner to be Native American,
the discovery is to be kept confidential
and secured to prevent any further
disturbance. In the case where
discovered human remains cannot be
fully documented and recovered on the
same day, the remains shall be covered
with muslin cloth and a steel plate that
can be moved by heavy equipment
placed over the excavation opening to
protect the remains. If this type of steel
plate is not available, a 24-hour guard
shall be posted outside of working hours.
The preferred method of treatment for
any discovery of Native American
Applicant;
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to
Ground-
Disturbing
Activities/
During
Construction
Community
Development
Department;
County Coroner
Prior to
Ground-
Disturbing
Activities/
During
Construction
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist [Continued]
Final | December 2019 4-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
remains on-site is preserving the
remains in situ and protected. If the
project cannot be diverted to preserve
the remains in place, the Tribe shall work
closely with the qualified archaeologist
to develop a treatment plan for a careful,
ethical and respectful excavation of the
discovered remains. The treatment plan
will include, but is not limited to, data
recovery methods and removal and
reburial procedures. Once complete, a
final report of all activities shall be
submitted to the Tribe and the Native
American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). There shall be no publicity
regarding any cultural materials
recovered.
PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1858-18
Final | December 2019 4-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\00104003T-1.1.dwgSheetNo:T1.1Savedby:ruby-Thursday,November14,20193:50PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November14,20193:51PM1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
T-1.1
TITLE SHEET
104 SEATS
P12 - Custom
GROSS 4,527 S.F.
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\00204003SP-1.dwgSheetNo:SITEPLANSavedby:ruby-Thursday,November14,20195:17PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November14,20195:17PM1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
1'-0"
6"
C2
C1
CA
EQ.EQ.
25'-0"8'-0"14'-8"4'-4"27'-0"3" PVC DOWNSPOUT
WITHIN COLUMN
NEW ORDER POINT X0.4
CANOPY PERIMETER
CHANNEL ABOVE
NOTE: DRAINAGE TO BE
BELOW GRADE WHEN
POSSIBLE PER SITE
CONDITIONS; TIE INTO
EXISTING UTILITIES.
NOTE: IF ABOVE
GROUND DRAINAGE IS
NECESSARY, LOCATED
ALL DOWNSPOUT
NOZZLES 8" ABOVE
TOP OF CURB
REF ELECTRICAL FOR
CONDUITS, SWITCHES,
AND ACCESS HOLES
AT COLUMN
CURB - RE: CIVIL, TYP
STRIPING - RE: CIVIL, TYP
GAS PIPE WITHIN
COLUMN - REF PLUMBING
ALIGN BACK FACE OF
COLUMN WITH EDGE
OF STRIPING
1'-4"12'-0"11'-8"
HEATER WITH NECESSARY SUPPORT TO
CANOPY DECKING, REF MECHANICAL
FAN WITH NECESSARY SUPPORT TO
CANOPY DECKING, REF ELECTRICAL
REFER TO MECHANICAL AND
ELECTRICAL FOR INFORMATION
ON LIGHT FIXTURES AND
MECHANICAL FIXTURES
C1
C2
CA
CENTER HEATERS
AND FANS OVER
STRIPING BELOW, TYP
2'-0"CANOPY DECK PANELING ABOVE
2'-0"4'-0"LED DECK LIGHT,
REF ELECTRICAL
CA
T.O. GRADE
12'-6"12'-6"
NEW ORDER POINT
BEYOND, TYP
HEATER
FAN
LED DECK
LIGHT
CLEARANCE HEIGHT NUMBERS
CANOPY PERIMETER CHANNEL
X0.19
9'-6"C1C2
4'-4"14'-8"8'-0"
NEW ORDER POINT
CANOPY PERIMETER CHANNEL
CANOPY COLUMN
FAN
HEATER
T.O. GRADE8'-0"MINB.O.HEATER7'-9"MINB.O.FANInformation contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\00204003SP-1ACanopyPlan.dwgSheetNo:LAYOUT1Savedby:ruby-Wednesday,November13,20193:52PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November13,20194:27PM 1/4" = 1'-0"
ORDER POINT CANOPY PLANA1 1/4" = 1'-0"
ORDER POINT CEILING PLANA2
1/4" = 1'-0"
ENTRY ELEVATIONB1 1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATIONB2
A104_ORDER POINT EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
TAG EQUIPMENT APPLICABLE TIER SUPPLIER CONTACT MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER COMMENTS123
X0.3 BOLLARD
SLEEVE -X X GC -
INTERSTATE
PRODUCTS OR
EQUAL
1736YRS - EAGLE 6"
6 7/8" ID, 7 3/8" OD, 56" H; Color: Safety
Yellow w/ reflective Red Stripe. High-density
polyethylene (HDPE) construction with uv
inhibitors; Slide-on & trim per manufacturer's
installation instructions
X0.4
C7 ORDER
POINT W/O
CANOPY
-X X
UNISTRUCTURES
OR CHANDLER
SIGNS
Carolyn Ward
(678-974-1759)
c.ward@unistructures.com
OR Kristen Hamilton, Amy
McCann, or Scarlett
Quintero (210-349-3804)
CFA@chandlersigns.com
UNISTRUCTURES
OR CHANDLER
SIGNS
-
83" L x 15' W x 77" H; See shop drawings
for more information; Matte Black textured
finish. Route conduit from building to order
point as indicated on drawings
X0.6
C7 DOUBLE
CLEARANCE
BAR
-BY
SITE
BY
SITE
UNISTRUCTURES
OR CHANDLER
SIGNS
SEE X0.4
UNISTRUCTURES
OR CHANDLER
SIGNS
-14'-6 1/2" L x 9'-0" H; See shop drawings for
more information; Matte Black textured finish
X0.19 CLEARANCE
TEXT -X X LANE OR
FASHION
Larry Tolbert (705-545-7615)
ltolbert@lanesupplyinc.com
OR Jason Holmes
(785-242-8111)
jholmes@fashioninc.com
LANE OR
FASHION -
9'-0" clearance text; metallic vynil numbers.
Text heights vary by canopy - see shops for
component and dimension info.; Canopy
vendor to install on order point canopies per
drawings.
SP-1A
ORDER POINT CANOPY
PLAN
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
6"
1"4' - 3 1/2"1"4' - 3 1/2"1"
6"
9' - 4"3'-6"9'-2"1' - 6"
NOTE:
PAINT GATE FRAMES,
HARDWARE & PIPES W/ PAINT
PT-9
PAINTED STEEL POST CAPS
(TYP)
- PAINT PT-9
2x 6 PREFINISHED PLASTIC
LUMBER (TYPICAL)
ATTACHED
TO STEEL FRAME
1-1/2"x1-1/2" PAINTED STEEL BRACE
-PAINT PT-9
6" DIA. PAINTED STEEL PIPE POST EACH SIDE
-PAINT PT-9
2-1/2"x2-1/2" PAINTED STEEL TUBE GATE FRAME
-PAINT PT-9
COLLAR HINGES (TAP & ADD
GREASE
FITTINGS AT EA. HINGE)
4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"9"8"8"18'-8"8"8"
12'-8"8'-8"
21'-4"10'-0"2'-0"3'-4"2'-8"18'-0"11 1/2"9'-4"9"9'-4"11 1/2"
3'-0"2'-6"
REFUSE
STORAGE
NOTE: SEE K SHEETS
FOR REQ'D.
SHELVING.
CONCRETE APRON
RE: CIVIL PLANS
6" DIA. STEEL PIPE GATE
POST EMBED IN 3'-6" DEEP
GATE POST FOUNDATION
RE: CIVIL PLANS
6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB
RE: STRUCTURAL
PIPE BOLLARDS
EMBED BOLLARD IN 18"
DIA. X 3'-6" CONCRETE
FILLED HOLE
CAPPED CONDUIT
RE: ELECTRICAL PLANS
8" CMU WALL WITH
STUCCO FINISH
3/4" NON-FREEZE HYDRANT
RE: PLUMBING
PROVIDE (2) WALL HUNG
BICYCLE HOODS @ 6'-0"
A.F.F. & 3'-0" O.C. INSIDE
OF STORAGE AREA FOR
LONG TERM BICYCLE
PARKING SLOPE2E
1E
2D
1D
2A
A-110
15
SLOPE SLOPESLOPEDRAIN
RE: PLUMB
5'-0"
ROOF & OVERFLOW DRAIN.
RE: PLUMBING
LOW PROFILE TURBINE ROOF VENTILATOR
MFR: ACTIVE VENTILATION PRODUCTS INC.
MODEL: AV-14-C02 "AURA ROOF VENT"
PHONE: 800-766-3836
WWW.ROOFVENTS.COM
(SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY G.C.)
1/4:12 MIN.
SLOPE
1/4:12 MIN.
SLOPE1/4:12MIN.SLOPE1/4:12MIN.SLOPETAN ROOFING
MEMBRANE OVER RIGID
INSULATION
STORAGE
REFUSE AREA
STUCCO OVER CMU
WALL
2x8 PRESSURE
TREATED TOP PLATE
5/8" PLYWOOD SHEATHING
TAN ROOF MEMBRANE OVER
TAPERED RIGID INSULATION
CONCRETE SLAB
RE: STRUCTURAL
CONCRETE FOOTING
RE: STRUCTURAL
2X6 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C.
PAINT PT-6
RE: STRUCTURAL
ONE COAT OF PRIMER &
ONE COAT OF PAINT
PT-5
8" CMU RUNNING BOND
BLOCK FILLER WITH
ONE COAT OF PRIMER
& ONE COAT OF
EPOXY PAINT PT-7
PIPE BOLLARD
PAINT PT-9
6" H. CONCRETE CURB
STEEL GATE POST PAINT PT-9
SLOPE
SEAL/WATERPROOF
SURFACES OF
BLOCK BELOW
GRADE BEFORE
BACKFILLING
6 MIL VAPOR BARRIER
0'-0"
T.O. STORAGE SLAB
10'-6'
T.O. CMU
9'-2"
B.O. CMU
SLOPE 1/4" PER FT.SLOPE 1/4" PER FT.
ROOF AND OVERFLOW DRAIN
RE: PLUMBING
WEEP SCREED
SLOPE
3X8 TREATED TOP PLATE
STUCCO
11'-10'
T.O. CMU
SEAL FLOOR
6" CONCRETE SLAB WITH WIRE
MESH REINFORCING
SLOPE
FLOOR DRAIN
RE: PLUMBING
2X6 JOIST @ 16" O.C. - PAINT PT-1A
RE: STRUCTURAL
-0'-6"
REFUSE FINISH FLOOR
DOUBLE GATES WITH PREFINISHED
1X4 PLASTIC LUMBER (EARTHCARE
PRODUCTS WEATHERED WOOD)
STEEL GATE POST
PAINT PT-9
SECURE TO STEEL FRAME
WITH THRU BOLTED
CARRIAGE BOLTS - 4 PER
BOARD PAINT HEADS
STUCCO OVER CMU WALL
11'-4"
T.O.CMU WALL
STUCCO OVER
CMU WALL
STEEL GATE POST
PAINT PT-9
PREFINISH METAL
COPING - PAINT PT-9
LIGHT FIXTURE
RE: ELECTRICAL
0'-0"
STORAGE FINISH FLOOR
11'-4"
T.O. CMU WALL
0'-0"
STORAGE FINISH FLOOR
STUCCO OVER CMU WALL
PREFINISHED METAL
COPING PAINT PT-9
11'-4"
T.O. CMU WALL
STUCCO OVER CMU
WALL
STEEL GATE POST
PAINT PT-9
PREFINISH METAL
COPING - PAINT PT-9
0'-0"
STORAGE FINISH FLOOR
11'-4"
T.O. CMU WALL
DOOR &
FRAME - PAINT
PT-9
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\10-04003A-110TrashEnclosure.dwgSheetNo:LAYOUT1Savedby:ruby-Wednesday,November13,20194:29PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November13,20195:15PM 1/4" = 1'-0"
TE GATE DETAIL3E
1/4" = 1'-0"
TE FLOOR PLAN1A
1/4" = 1'-0"
TE ROOF PLAN3D
1/2" = 1'-0"
TE SECTION2A
1/4" = 1'-0"
TE EAST ELEVATION2E 1/4" = 1'-0"
TE SOUTH ELEVATION1E
1/4" = 1'-0"
TE WEST ELEVATION2D 1/4" = 1'-0"
TE NORTH ELEVATION1D
A-110
REFUSE ENCLOSURE
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
NORTH
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\10-04003A1-1A.dwgSheetNo:FLOORPLANSavedby:ruby-Thursday,November14,20193:32PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November14,20193:37PMA-1.1A
FLOOR PLAN
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\10-04003A2-1.dwgSheetNo:EXTERIORELEVATIONSSavedby:ruby-Thursday,November14,20191:28PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November14,20193:38PMEXTERIOR FINISHES
ST-1
STC-1
STC-2
STC-3
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DE6230 "CENTER RIDGE"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DEW382 "FADED GRAY"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DE6370 "CHARCOAL SMUDGE"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STOREFRONT
YKK - YES 45
COLOR - DARK BRONZE (MATTE)
A-1
ALUMINUM AWNING
DARK BRONZE
EC-1
PARAPET WALL COPING - DUROLAST /
EXCEPTIONAL METALS
PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
A-2.1
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\10-04003A2-2.dwgSheetNo:EXTERIORELEVATIONSSavedby:ruby-Thursday,November14,20191:28PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November14,20193:39PMEXTERIOR FINISHES
ST-1
STC-1
STC-2
STC-3
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DE6230 "CENTER RIDGE"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DEW382 "FADED GRAY"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STUCCO - STO
PAINT #DE6370 "CHARCOAL SMUDGE"
FINISH - SAND MEDIUM
STOREFRONT
YKK - YES 45
COLOR - DARK BRONZE (MATTE)
A-1
ALUMINUM AWNING
DARK BRONZE
EC-1
PARAPET WALL COPING - DUROLAST /
EXCEPTIONAL METALS
PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
A-2.2
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.6
1.3
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.7
1.3
2.6
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.4
2.5
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.7
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.1
2.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.1
2.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.3
1.9
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.2
2.1
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.1
2.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
5.0
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.2
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.8
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.9
9.0
3.7
3.3
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.9
1.6
2.7
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.0
9.3
3.1
2.8
1.7
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.6
3.2
4.4
4.6
4.1
4.2
3.3
1.8
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.6
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
4.3
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.2
3.2
5.1
5.6
5.0
5.4
4.2
2.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.8
1.6
2.6
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.9
4.4
4.8
4.4
4.5
3.6
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.0
3.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.6
3.6
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
1.0
1.5
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.1
3.2
5.2
5.6
4.8
5.3
4.1
1.8
0.7
0.4
0.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.8
4.0
4.2
3.8
3.7
2.9
1.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.7
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.6
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.2
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.6
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.8
2.2
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.6
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.2
1.5
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.9
2.7
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
2.1
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.1
2.1
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.0
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.4
2.0
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
1.7
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
2.1
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.0
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
2.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.5
1.9
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
1.8
2.7
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.9
1.6
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.1
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.6
2.7
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.1
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.6
2.6
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.3
1.9
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.5
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.8
1.6
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.6
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.8
3.7
3.4
3.1
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.4
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.6
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.3
3.6
5.4
4.7
3.8
5.0
4.8
4.1
4.9
4.1
2.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.4
2.3
3.3
3.3
2.8
1.6
0.8
1.1
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.7
3.3
4.1
4.0
3.6
4.0
3.4
2.1
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.3
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.5
2.0
1.0
1.2
2.1
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
3.4
3.2
4.5
4.6
3.9
2.2
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.4
3.5
4.4
3.5
5.0
5.2
4.0
2.3
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.9
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
3.1
4.4
5.0
5.0
4.1
2.3
1.2
1.1
2.0
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.9
5.7
6.1
4.9
4.1
2.3
1.2
1.1
1.9
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
5.6
6.1
5.3
3.8
2.2
1.2
0.9
1.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.6
4.4
5.3
4.7
4.0
2.3
1.2
0.8
1.4
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.5
3.6
4.3
4.7
4.0
2.3
1.2
0.6
1.3
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.2
3.0
3.3
4.8
5.0
4.0
2.3
1.2
0.6
1.3
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.0
3.0
6.3
3.1
4.5
4.6
3.8
2.2
1.1
0.7
1.1
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
2.1
3.6
6.3
2.9
3.5
4.0
3.5
2.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.9
3.3
6.6
2.3
3.3
3.2
2.8
1.6
0.8
0.5
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.1
4.5
0.0
1.6
2.0
2.1
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
0.8
3.1
1.1
0.2
1.6
2.7
0.3
1.7
2.7
0.4
1.0
4.7
3.6
2.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
D
D
D
AA
B
B
A
A
A
FF F F
B
B
BBBB
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
I:\Chick-fil-A\16-Jobs\16-176202S.MainSt.,Orange,CA\Graphics\20CustomDesign\20.2SchematicDesign\Photometrics\04003PH-1.dwgSheetNo:SITEPLANSavedby:ruby-Wednesday,November13,20191:28PMPrintedby:RubyWang-November13,20194:29PMLuminaire Schedule
Symbol Label Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Lamp Number
Lamps Filename Lumens Per
Lamp Light Loss Factor Wattage
A
5 Eaton Lighting 60-D-UNV-T4-D-UNV-T4-BZ
@ 27'-0" A.F.F.
PREVAIL AREA AND ROADWAY LED 1 PRV-A60-D-UNV-T4-BZ.ies 18356 1 163
B
8 PROGRESS P5675-3130K 5" 17W LED DIRECT/INDIRECT CYLINDER 1 PROG_P5675-3130K 829 1 33.9
C
7 LSI INDUSTRIES, INC CRUS-SC-LED-LW-50 1 CRUS-SC-LED-LW-50.IES 10524 0.1 73.5
27'-0" A.F.F.
8'-0" A.F.F.
9'-8" A.F.F.
2 - 3000K LED
MODULES _17.02768_
Statistics
Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Avg/Max
Calc Zone #2 1.9 fc 9.3 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 0.2:1
D
5 EATON - HALO SLD405830WH 1 SLD405830WH.IES 749 1 12.2
9'-8" A.F.F.
TESTLABREPORTS.IES
HALO 4 INCH SURFACE LED DOWNLIGHT LED 80CRI /3000K
E
1 BEGA US 2392LED
@ 8'-0" A.F.F.
7-3/4"L. X 9-3/8"W. X 4-1/8"H. WALL LED 1 2392LED.ies 2121 1 27.6
8'-0" A.F.F.
F
4 Louis Poulsen Lighting ALB-MIN-PT_LED_30K
@ 10'-0" A.F.F.
Alberslund Mini LED 3000K LED 1 US_LITMS_ALB-MIN-PT_
LED_30K_V00 A0320.ies
2827 1 42.0
10'-0" A.F.F.
WASHER LED LUMINAIRE CLEAR LENS
LUMINAIRE (2) 70 CRI, 4000K LEDS, HIGH
OUTPUT AND TYPE IV OPTICS, BRONZE
PAINTED FINISH
1833 E 17th. Street; Suite 301Santa Ana, CA. 92705phone 714.832.1834
PH-1
PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY
PLANTING PLAN
VB/JGH
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT #
PRINTED FOR
DATE
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
\\Mac\Dropbox for Business\Hourian Team Folder\Projects\CFA\New Locations\CA\CFA Main & Almond - Orange, CA_ 04003\05-04003-L1.0PP.dwg Sheet No: PLANTING PLAN Saved by: nicolenunn - Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:14 PM Printed by: Nicolenunn - December 10, 2019 7:17 PMMAIN & ALMOND202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003
16-176
Plan'g, Building, Etc.
11-18-19
SEAL
hourian associates
landscape architecture + design
p: 949.489-5623 efax: 877.271.3122
107 avenida miramar , suite d
san clemente , california 92672
e: team@hourianassociates.com
, inc.
Date
Renewal Date
Signature
1288
9-30-21
11-18-19
PRELIMINARY
IRRIGATION PLAN
mdm/JGH
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT #
PRINTED FOR
DATE
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
\\Mac\Dropbox for Business\Hourian Team Folder\Projects\CFA\New Locations\CA\CFA Main & Almond - Orange, CA_ 04003\05-04003-L1.1IP.dwg Sheet No: IRRIGATION PLAN Saved by: nicolenunn - Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:21 PM Printed by: Nicolenunn - December 10, 2019 7:21 PMMAIN & ALMOND202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003
16-176
Plan'g, Building, Etc.
11-18-19
SEAL
hourian associates
landscape architecture + design
p: 949.489-5623 efax: 877.271.3122
107 avenida miramar , suite d
san clemente , california 92672
e: team@hourianassociates.com
, inc.
Date
Renewal Date
Signature
1288
9-30-21
11-18-19
LANDCADD 1987
Information contained on this drawing and in all
digital files produced for above named project
may not be reproduced in any manner without
express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
ENGINEER'S PROJECT #
PRINTED FOR
DATE
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWN BY
Chick-fil-A
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia
30349-2998
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
A
FSR#CHICK-FIL-A1
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
234
1234
5
5
P:\CFA16046\CAD\16046CGP.dwg Sheet No: SHT-1 TITLE Saved by: cruzsg - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:11 PM Printed by: Randy Decker - November 13, 2019 4:53 PMMAIN & ALMOND202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003
CFA16046
Plan'g, Building, Etc.
11-14-19
SGC
TITLE SHEET
1 of 4
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987 LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
Information contained on this drawing and in alldigital files produced for above named projectmay not be reproduced in any manner withoutexpress written or verbal consent fromauthorized project representatives.ENGINEER'S PROJECT #PRINTED FORDATESHEETSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYChick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEAFSR#CHICK-FIL-A1B CDEABCDE234123455P:\CFA16046\CAD\16046CGP.dwg Sheet No: SHT-2 CGP Saved by: cruzsg - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:11 PM Printed by: Randy Decker - November 13, 2019 4:50 PM
MAIN & ALMOND
202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003CFA16046Plan'g, Building, Etc.11-14-19SGCCONCEPTUAL GRADINGPLAN & DRAINAGE PLANof42
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987 LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
Information contained on this drawing and in alldigital files produced for above named projectmay not be reproduced in any manner withoutexpress written or verbal consent fromauthorized project representatives.ENGINEER'S PROJECT #PRINTED FORDATESHEETSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYChick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEAFSR#CHICK-FIL-A1B CDEABCDE234123455P:\CFA16046\CAD\16046CGP.dwg Sheet No: SHT-3 NOTES Saved by: cruzsg - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:11 PM Printed by: Randy Decker - November 13, 2019 4:51 PM
MAIN & ALMOND
202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003CFA16046Plan'g, Building, Etc.11-14-19SGCCONSTRUCTION NOTESof43
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
Information contained on this drawing and in alldigital files produced for above named projectmay not be reproduced in any manner withoutexpress written or verbal consent fromauthorized project representatives.ENGINEER'S PROJECT #PRINTED FORDATESHEETSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYChick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEAFSR#CHICK-FIL-A1B CDEABCDE234123455P:\CFA16046\CAD\16046CUT.dwg Sheet No: SHT-4 CUT Saved by: cruzsg - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:11 PM Printed by: Randy Decker - November 13, 2019 4:56 PM
MAIN & ALMOND
202 S MAIN ST., ORANGE, CA04003CFA16046Plan'g, Building, Etc.11-14-19SGCCONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN4of4
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
P:\CFA16046\CAD\01-4003-16046AL.dwg, BDY, 1:1
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
P:\CFA16046\CAD\01-4003-16046AL.dwg, TOPO, 1:1