HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 28 - Public Hearing - Amendment Application for the Village Santa Ana Specific PlanPlanning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.org/pb
Item # 28
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
September 16, 2025
TOPIC: The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement
(1561 W. Sunflower Avenue)
AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing - Amendment Application (Zone Change) No. 2025-01, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 2025-06, Development Agreement No. 2025-01, and Overrule of the
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency for The
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
Legal notice published in the OC Reporter on September 5, 2025 and notices mailed on
same date.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Adopt a resolution: (1) certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087) for the Project; (2) adopting
Environmental Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the Project; (3) adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project; and (4) approving the Project;
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA: (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SCH NO. 2020029087); (2) ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06 (County
Map No. 2023-159), as conditioned;
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 2025-06 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2023-159), AS CONDITIONED, FOR THE
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 2
VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT
1561 W. SUNFLOWER AVENUE
3. Adopt a resolution overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's
determination that The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan is inconsistent with the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan of John Wayne Airport, including supportive
findings (requires two-thirds vote);
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE VILLAGE
SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W.
SUNFLOWER AVENUE, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS
LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE
FINDINGS
4. Conduct a first reading and adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application
No. 2025-01 establishing The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No.
6) and approving a zone change for the Project Site at 1561 W. Sunflower Avenue
from Specific Development No. 48 to Specific Plan No. 6; and
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO.
2025-01 TO ESTABLISH THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO
APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PROJECT SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1561 W. SUNFLOWER AVENUE, FROM SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT NO. 48 TO THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-6)
5. Conduct a first reading and adopt an uncodified ordinance approving Development
Agreement No. 2025-01.
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
2025-01 FOR THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W. SUNFLOWER AVENUE, BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA AND SOUTH COAST PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
GOVERNMENT CODE 484308 APPLIES: Yes
Executive Summary
Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general partnership
("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of various entitlements to
facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into a mixed -use urban village ("Project").
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 3
The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa Ana ("City"), on
the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear Street, transected by
South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11 addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641,
and 1661 W. Sunflower Avenue; 3820, 3840, and 3951 S. Plaza Drive; and 3811 and
3851 S. Bear Street) and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-451-
01, 412-451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-01 to establish the
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) and to change the zoning district of the Project
Site from Specific Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map
(VTTM) No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project Site into six
buildable lots; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01 outlining terms and
conditions for the Project. In addition, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) the Project requires: (1) certification of a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087); (2) adoption
of Environmental Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and (3)
adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Lastly, the Project
requires overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC)
determination that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan
(AELUP) of John Wayne Airport (JWA), including supportive findings.
Pursuant to sections 41-592 and 41-667 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC),
approval of a specific plan and a zone change is required by the City Council by
ordinance. In accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code
(Gov. Code), the City Council is authorized to enter into binding development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of
such property. In accordance with Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the
City Council may overrule ALUC's determination by a two-thirds vote if it makes specific
findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
Lastly, pursuant to Section 34-127 of the SAMC, the Planning Commission is authorized
to review and approve tentative tract maps; however, since the Project requires review of
other entitlements by the City Council, the City Council is required to act on this matter as
well.
Staff is recommending approval of the Applicant's request because the Project is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, implements
the goals and vision of the South Bristol Street Focus Area (SBSFA) of the General Plan,
and provides for a high -quality mixed -use urban village that will contribute community
benefits and new economic development opportunities for the City.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 4
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Project on August 11, 2025. As
part of its deliberation, the Planning Commission deliberated the topics summarized in
Table 1 for the applicant to address but ultimately voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend
that the City Council approve the requested entitlements and development agreement as
drafted. Where provided, the Applicant's responses are summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Planning Commission Topics for Applicant Consideration
Topic
Summary
Applicant Response
Native Lands
Formally recognize the Indigenous
As applications for specific projects are
Acknowledgement
peoples of the site's history through an
submitted for review, opportunities to
onsite marker or designated space.
honor the Indigenous peoples with
ancestral ties will be explored.
Project Interface
Frontages facing Bear Street should
The proposed specific plan is a higher -
with Bear Street
include enhanced architecture and
level planning document with design
pedestrian -oriented elements to create
concepts, including architectural and
an active and functional building and
landscape elements, that will be
public realm interface.
implemented through individual projects
submitted to the City.
Hotel Use
Consider requiring a conditional use
The Public Hearing portion of the
Permissibility
permit (CUP) for hotels in the specific
meeting had closed when this topic was
plan area.
discussed; the Planning Commission
did not vote to reopen the Public Hearing
to provide an opportunity for response.
The City received 17 public comments on the Project that were submitted online. The
majority of the comments were in support of the Project. The City prepared written
responses for each comment received prior to the 3:30 p.m. deadline; the responses were
uploaded to the record and printed for the public hearing prior to the 5:30 p.m. meeting.
Those responses are attached to this report as Exhibit 11. During the public hearing, a
total of six individuals provided comments on the Project; four were in support and two
were in opposition of the Project.
DISCUSSION
The Project proposes to redevelop the Project Site with a mixed -use urban village on six
parcels. The Project would permit up to 1,583 residential units (encompassing
approximately 1,850,000 square feet of building space) with a projected population of
3,659 individuals (at a 95.9 percent occupancy rate), 80,000 square feet of commercial
space, 300,000 square feet of office space, and 13.8 acres of public and private outdoor
and recreation space (of which 7.5 acres will be publicly accessible open space). These
uses would occupy mixed -use, residential, and commercial buildings varying in height
from one to 25 stories. The Project's focal point is a central commercial area that would
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 5
include a variety of commercial uses, such as restaurants, a market, and retail uses, with
additional commercial uses extending through the ground floor of adjacent residential
buildings creating an urban village design.
Table 2: Proiect Location Information and Applicable Code Sections
Item
Information
Project Address and Council Ward
1561 W. Sunflower Avenue — Ward 4
Nearest Intersections
West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear Street, transected
by South Plaza Drive
Existing General Plan
District Center — High (DC-5)
Existing Zoning Designation
Specific Development No. 48 (SD-48)
Proposed Zoning Designation
Specific Plan No. 6 (SP-6)
North
Multi -family communities of Versailles on
the Lake and Saint Albans
East
Commercial Center / Related Bristol
Surrounding Land Use
Specific Plan (SP-5)
West
Village Creek condominium community in
the City of Costa Mesa
South
South Coast Plaza in the City of Costa
Mesa
Property Size
17.2 acres
The Project Site is currently developed with the South Coast
Plaza Village commercial center, which consists of
Existing Site Development
approximately 164,049 square feet of retail shops,
restaurants, offices, and a cinema building. Other
improvements include surface parking and landscaping.
Use Permissions
Mixed -use urban villages permissible by the DC-5 General
Plan land use designation.
Development
Appendix A, Table LU-A-1 (Interim
Municipal Code Section Sections
Standards
Development Standards) of the General
Affected
Plan Land Use Element.
Entitlements
Sections 34-12, 41-592, and 41-667 of
the SAMC.
Should the Project be approved, construction of the Project would be implemented in five
phases to account for market conditions and to ensure that access, public facilities, and
infrastructure connections are appropriately installed to serve the Project. These phases
may overlap and completion of the Project may take up to 20 years, depending on market
factors. As the requested entitlements would establish a specific plan, individual Project
phases would be reviewed through the administrative Development Project Review
process, similar to what takes place in other master -planned areas of the City, such as
the MainPlace Mall and Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor specific plans, and as
approved for the Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP-5). If individual phases do not satisfy
the development standards and design review requirements of the City, they would be
remanded to the Planning Commission for review.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 6
Table 3: Project Breakdown and Phasing Plan
Phase
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Total
Residential
360
513
177
264
269
1,583
Units
Commercial
73,175
---
---
6,825
---
80,000
Square feet
Office
300,000
---
300,000
(Square feet)
Parking
797
719
248
1,298
377
3,439
(Number of Stalls)
Publicly
Accessible Open
3.1
2.3
0.4
1.2
0.5
7.5
Space
—
(Acres)
Proposed Circulation and Mobility
The Project would provide a pedestrian network allowing residents, visitors, and other
users to circulate from one space to another throughout the Project Site, with connections
to the SP-5 area as well. The Project would be designed with three tiers of pathways: (1)
sidewalks, (2) pedestrian paths, and (3) a fitness loop. Sidewalks would provide access
to and from the Project Site, and would allow residents and visitors to walk to nearby
destinations, such as South Coast Plaza. Sidewalks would be parallel to the existing
public roadways and will range in width from five to eight feet. Pedestrian paths would
form the core of the pedestrian network for the Project. All pedestrian paths would lead
to the central commercial area. The proposed fitness loop would be a unique Project
feature providing both a recreational amenity to residents and a functional component of
the pedestrian network. The fitness loop would consist of an outer loop around the
perimeter of the Project Site and an inner loop connecting to proposed gardens, open
space, and retail areas within the Project Site, enabling runners, pedestrians, and other
users to reach every corner of the Project Site.
The Project also proposes a network of bikeways that would enable residents and other
users to travel to and from the Project Site via bicycle. The bicycle network has been
designed in accordance with the planned bikeways identified in the Mobility Element (ME)
of the General Plan, and would include a new Class IV cycle track along West Sunflower
Avenue and a new Class I bike path along South Bear Street. The Project would also
include amenities throughout the Project Site for users to park their bicycles.
The proposed circulation network would consist of existing public roadways and a new
internal network of private streets and drives that would offer access throughout the
Project Site. Vehicular access to the Project Site would continue to be provided from three
existing public roadways: (1) Sunflower Avenue, (2) Plaza Drive, and (3) Bear Street. The
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 7
Project would improve Sunflower Avenue with a new Class IV cycle track, landscape
buffers, and enhanced sidewalks. Improvements to Plaza Drive would include a road
expansion from 64 to 80 feet to accommodate proposed loading zones, center medians,
sidewalks, and landscape buffers. In addition, two new traffic signals would be installed
along Plaza Drive. Improvements to Bear Street would include upgraded bicycle facilities
and a new traffic signal. To address community input during the outreach process, the
Project would also include a new traffic signal at the intersection of Bear Street and
Wakeham Place.
The Project would include a new internal network of private roadways to support mobility
throughout the Project Site. Private roadways fall under three roadway categories: (1)
private drives, (2) private streets, and (3) driveways. Private drives would support the
internal circulation of people and goods for the Project Site. Private streets would provide
the same functions as the proposed private drives but would also provide public entitles,
such as the City and utilities companies, access to the Project Site for utility purposes.
Proposed driveways would provide residents and businesses access to specific building
areas. Private drives and streets would be designed with one travel lane in each direction,
with planting and pedestrian paths on both sides. The private drives and streets would
also provide access to emergency vehicles for fire, ambulance, and police services.
Multiple loading zones are proposed to accommodate passengers and goods. These
include designated passenger loading zones that would create safe and comfortable
entries for passengers that are dropped off or picked up via ridesharing or other modes.
The designated passenger loading zones would be designed to prevent queuing in
vehicular travel lanes. The Project would also include commercial loading zones to
separate the movement of goods from the movement of people and to support businesses
throughout the Project Site.
The Project would provide parking to accommodate residents and visitors that drive to
and from the Project by a combination of underground parking, above -ground structure
parking, and on -street parking. Above- or below -ground structured parking would be
provided for each residential, mixed -use, or office building. Underground and on -street
parking would be provided adjacent to the proposed Village Plaza area, which would
include retail, food and beverage, among other uses. A portion of these parking spaces
would be designated and equipped with charging receptacles for electric vehicles for
residential and nonresidential uses in accordance with the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen). Table 4 provides a breakdown of the proposed vehicular
and bicycle parking ratios being proposed by the Project.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 8
Table 4: Proposed Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Ratios
Use
Ratio
Office
3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
Residential
1.4 parking spaces per unit (1)
Commercial
4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
Residential
Minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces per multi -family building
Commercial
5 percent of the required vehicular parking
Notes:
(1) With Parking Management Plan strategies such as valet services, the Project can accommodate, if needed, a parking ratio
of 2 parking spaces per unit.
Proposed Open Space and Landscape Concept
The Project proposes open space and an immersive landscaping concept as essential
components of placemaking for the Project. At full buildout, the Project would provide a
combined 13.8 acres of public and private outdoor and recreation space. Approximately
7.5 acres would be publicly accessible open space and 6.3 acres would be private outdoor
and amenity spaces for the residents.
Public open spaces would consist of active spaces, outdoor seating areas, garden
paseos, recreational lawns, and the fitness loop. Private open space amenities would
include outdoor balconies and patios, pools and spas, outdoor kitchens, and communal
gathering spaces. The Project would provide unique areas of active and passive open
space. Active areas would include walkways, programmable roadways, a promenade,
garden paseos, and the fitness loop, which would provide pedestrian and exercise
opportunities and connections to the proposed amenities and retail areas in the Project.
Passive open spaces would include recreation -ready spaces such as pocket parks, a dog
park, and gathering areas including a promenade suitable for outdoor programming, such
as outdoor yoga, fitness classes, outdoor movie nights, and other gathering activities. In
addition, the Project would be designed with private open space amenities throughout the
buildings. These spaces would provide residents with communal gathering spaces and
intimate gardens; opportunities for recreation; and amenity facilities including pools and
spas, outdoor kitchens, and socializing areas. Additionally, the residential areas would
include other private open space areas such as private balconies and patios. The Project
would also include a number of planting zones with a variety of native and drought -tolerant
trees, plants, shrubs, and ground covers to create an immersive garden experience. The
planting zones would complement the architecture of the Project to create a unique sense
of place and foster community gathering.
Infrastructure, Utility, and Other Improvements
The Project would construct new private water mains and private fire hydrants within the
Project Site to service each proposed structure for domestic and fire water purposes. The
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 9
Project would include the construction of an onsite private sewer network that would
convey all sewer flows generated west of Plaza Drive to discharge to an existing Orange
County Sanitation District (OC San) trunk sewer main located along Sunflower Avenue.
Sewer flows generated east of Plaza Drive would connect to an existing OC San sewer
main along Plaza Drive as well as an existing City owned sewer main along Sunflower
Avenue to utilize available existing capacities in the system. The proposed Project
grading and storm drain network would be designed to match existing drainage and flow
patterns to best utilize the capacities available in the existing public storm drain system.
Development of the Project would include the construction of new public water mains, fire
hydrants, and meters. New domestic, irrigation, and fire water service connections for
each proposed structure would be made directly to the existing and proposed public water
mains.
While the Project Site has been fully developed with the current uses, the proposed
Project entails a greater intensity of uses compared with existing operations, and would
therefore require a greater demand on utility systems and public services. Utility
connections and extensions, distribution lines, and collection lines would be extended
and/or upgraded, as needed, from existing infrastructure locations and would be analyzed
during each phase of the Project.
Site and Project Background
Site History
Through the 1960s, uses in the Project vicinity remained mostly for agricultural uses. The
first major retail development in this rural setting occurred in 1967, when former lima bean
producers C.J. Segerstrom and Sons ("Segerstrom Family") constructed the South Coast
Plaza mall on land just south of the Project Site. In 1973, the Segerstrom Family built the
South Coast Village, current Project Site development, providing an open-air pedestrian
center in the area. The Segerstrom Family still owns the Project Site and has maintained
a long-standing presence in the City and County of Orange since the 1890s.
General Plan Update (2022)
In April 2022, the City Council adopted the General Plan Update (GPU) that established
a long-term vision for the City. The GPU Land Use Element (LU) designates the Project
Site as DC-5 within the SBSFA. Development in the DC-5 designation is intended to
provide urban retail, residential, mixed -use, and employment centers with an intensity of
up to 5.0 floor area ratio (FAR) and 125 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Mixed -use
projects may be vertical or horizontal with a maximum height of 25 stories.
The SBSFA serves as a prominent southern gateway to Santa Ana. The DC-5
designation envisions transforming traditional auto -oriented shopping plazas into vibrant,
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 10
urban villages that prioritize pedestrian, bike, and transit mobility. The SBSFA envisions
a built environment that includes:
1) New development that establishes vibrant public outdoor space appropriately
scaled to the size and type of project;
2) Building designs that are dynamic and strong, creating a distinct impression; and
3) Office and mixed -use spaces of similar scale to those south of Sunflower Avenue.
Proiect Backaround
On August 7, 2023, the Applicant submitted the Project to the City for review by the
Development Review Committee (DRC). Since the initial submittal, the Applicant has held
numerous community meetings and has revised the Project to incorporate feedback
received from the community and comments provided by the DRC. Over the last year,
the Applicant worked with staff to finalize technical reports, including the final SEIR.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Specific Plan No. 6
Pursuant to Section 41-592 of the SAMC, the approval and establishment of a specific
plan requires approval of an ordinance by the City Council, with the Planning Commission
serving as an advisory body. Furthermore, Government Code Section 65451 requires that
a specific plan include text and diagrams that specify:
1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, in
the area covered by the specific plan;
2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components
of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed within the area covered by the
specific plan and needed to support land uses described in the specific plan;
3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable;
and
4) A program of implementation measures, including regulations, programs,
infrastructure projects, and financing measures necessary to execute the specific
plan.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 11
The specific plan tool has been identified as the appropriate zoning tool for the Project in
order to implement the vision of the SBSFA of the GPU. The proposed SP-6 for the
Project contains the required components listed above (attached hereto as Exhibit 7). SP-
6 includes the following six chapters:
1) Introduction. Provides an overview of SP-6, including the Project setting and
background; purpose; authority; and relationship to other relevant plans,
programs, and regulations;
2) Vision and Guiding Principles. Describes the vision and guiding principles for the
Project, along with key features of the urban design and placement elements of
the Project;
3) Development Plan. Establishes the land use plan, buildout summary, and
permitted uses for the Project Site. It also describes the open space and landscape
concepts; pedestrian, bike, and vehicular circulation; and infrastructure such as
water, sewer, and storm drain;
4) Development Regulation. Provides permitted uses and development standards.
Standards include building form, setbacks, building orientation, and open space
requirements. It also includes maximum density and intensity for development,
parking standards, and signage regulations;
5) Design Guidelines. Complementary to Chapter 4, Chapter 5 contains guidelines
related to the design of the Project Site and buildings and information about
architectural materials and landscape inspiration, including a list of recommended
trees, plants, shrubs, and ground cover; and
6) Administration and Implementation. Establishes the responsibility, enforcement,
and interpretation of the plan. It also includes processes for the review of phase
developments and modifications and amendments to the plan. This chapter also
covers financing for the Project.
In addition to these chapters, SP-6 also contains supporting appendices that include
governing definitions, summary of general plan consistency, economic and fiscal impact
analysis, traffic circulation analysis, parking management plan, and regulations pertaining
to alcohol sales.
SP-6 is consistent with and was guided by the goals and policies of the GPU.
Furthermore, the applicant is proposing a site plan, mix of uses, architectural design and
landscape concepts, and development regulations in the SP-6 that were informed and
guided by the following seven principles:
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 12
1) A Village Community. The Village Santa Ana will offer a unique setting for
shopping, dining, and accessing daily services. Unlike traditional commercial
centers dominated by surface parking, this neighborhood village will be the hub of
activity, designed within a parklike setting that creates an intimate and relaxing
environment.
2) Warm, Timeless, and Iconic Architectural Design. Through high -quality human -
scale design elements, selection of warm materials, four-sided architecture, and
places for terrace gardens and green walls, the design of the buildings will work
holistically with the landscaping and parklike village atmosphere.
3) Diversity of Outdoor Spaces and Activities at Multiple Levels. People who visit or
live at The Village will find a multitude of unique outdoor spaces for strolling,
reading, dining, meeting friends, exercising, and playing. The retail village common
areas may be programmed for recurring activities such as movie nights, seasonal
events, exercise options such as outdoor yoga, family nights, and other
opportunities for nearby residents. Ground level residential amenities in the
buildings surrounding the retail village will open to the village square and have
amenitized open space as their front yard. Rooftops, terraces, and balconies will
overlook the activities at the ground level and offer an array of amenities for
residents.
4) An Extension of the Arts. There is an array of indoor and outdoor art installations
on Segerstrom properties and others in the area that can virtually or physically
become part of an art walk (such as Noguchi's California Scenario, Serra's
Connector, and Perry's The Ram). The Village Santa Ana will be an extension of
the art walk, showcasing art works in the form of landscaping, stand-alone art
pieces, and local artisan retail. Distinctive architecture and high -quality materials
will contribute to the character of The Village Santa Ana.
5) Activated Streets. Contrasted with the existing site layout, new residential and
commercial buildings will orient toward the streets and retail village and provide
easy access for pedestrians. The streetscape and building setbacks along
Sunflower Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Bear Street, and internal Project roads will be
designed with a cohesive palette of drought -tolerant plants with unique
characteristics, brightly colored flowers, and a mix of succulents and trees.
6) Sustainable Foundation. Planning, design, and development of The Village Santa
Ana is rooted in sustainability. Like prior generations, this new development will
aim to protect and care for the land. Best practices for reduced energy and water
consumption, sustainably sourced materials, and integration of pervious surfaces
along with thoughtful plant selection will support on -site water retention for this
green village community. All of these features and more will ensure a lasting,
sustainable development for generations to come.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 13
7) Balance of Land Uses. The Village Santa Ana will contain a broad mix of land uses
serving regional, community, and local needs. This includes a mix of retail,
restaurant, and entertainment uses that complement South Coast Plaza and
contribute to the local Santa Ana economy. The Village Santa Ana will also help
meet the significant demand for additional housing in the community.
Table 5 provides an analysis of SP-6 that warrants staff's recommendation of approval of
the requested action.
Table 5: Key Issues Analysis
Ke Issue
Analysis
Scale and Compatibility
SP-6 is intended to produce a dynamic, mixed -use village that is integrated
into and respects the surrounding community. The GPU land use
designation of DC-5 for the Project Site allows developments up to 25
stories tall. SP-6 limits building heights to 25 stories and buildings adjacent
to the northern property line will be limited to 8 stories, which is consistent
with the GPU. Furthermore, through the City's DRC process for each phase
and design guidelines contained in SP-6, new buildings will be reviewed and
designed to be compatible with the existing surrounding uses by including
upper story step -backs and other features to reduce upper story massing.
Density and Intensity
The DC-5 designation of the GPU allows a density of up to 125 du/acre and
a maximum FAR of 5.0. SP-6 is consistent with the density and intensity of
the GPU. The Project, as designed, is proposing a density of 93 du/acre and
a FAR of 3.0, below what is permissible by the GPU. Typical residential
densities of existing multiple -family communities in the area range from 16
to 25 du/acre; however, SP-6 includes a variety of development standards,
design guidelines, and amenities designed not only to reduce the impact of
higher -density residential development, but to also enhance existing
community -wide amenities for existing residences surrounding the Project
Site. The Project's density and FAR is comparable with the density of 91
du/acre and FAR of 2.7 approved for SP-5.
The Project will feature 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space, which
will be accessible to all Santa Ana residents and programmed with functions
to provide active and passive recreation. The Project also includes private
residential open space and amenity space that will ensure a livable
environment for residents.
Onsite Parking
The Project will provide approximately 3,439 parking stalls and the parking
ratios are consistent with newer developments recently constructed and
with the parking ratios approved for the adjacent SP-5. Parking would be
provided through a combination of underground parking, above -ground
structure parking, and on -street parking. Above- or below -ground structured
parking would be provided for each residential, mixed -use, or office building.
Underground and on -street parking would be provided adjacent to the
proposed village plaza area, which would include retail, food and beverage,
among other uses. A portion of these parking spaces would be designated
and equipped with charging receptacles for electric vehicles for residential
and nonresidential uses in accordance with CALGreen.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 14
Ke Issue
Analysis
A Parking Management Plan (PMP), attached hereto as Appendix E of
Exhibit 7, was prepared for the Project to ensure adequate parking is being
provided and managed properly for all residents, tenants, employees, and
guests. The PMP identifies how parking stalls will be assigned, how gates
will be managed, and how access (keycard, access codes) for residents,
guests, employees, and the public will be provided. Based on the provided
PMP, sufficient parking will be provided to satisfy the parking demand for
residents, guests, patrons, and employees of the Project. Nevertheless, a
condition of approval requiring the Applicant to implement and enforce the
appropriate parking management strategies recommended in the PMP has
been included.
Affordable Housing and
The City's inclusionary housing ordinance, known as AHOCO, generally
Opportunity Creation
applies to housing projects proposing five or more units that are also
Ordinance (AHOCO)
requesting an increase in allowable density or are located in certain sections
of the City that were "up -zoned," such as through zone change or general
plan amendment to allow additional residential development after
November 28, 2011. As the Project is located in a section of the City that
meets this threshold (SBSFA), the Applicant's request is subject to the
AHOCO requirements of production of affordable housing or payment of in -
lieu fees. Pursuant to Sections 41-1903 (Exempt Projects) and 41-1904
(Options to Satisfy Inclusionary Requirements) of the SAMC, the Applicant
has indicated intent to select the option to pay in -lieu fees at a rate of $5 per
square foot of habitable residential area through the requested development
agreement. Based on available figures for the Project and under the current
ordinance, staff's analysis of the Project indicates the Project could
generate approximately $7,100,000 in in -lieu fees, based on 1,583 units
proposed, unit types/mix, and square footages. Any in -lieu fees generated
by the Project must be spent on production of affordable housing in the City
of Santa Ana.
Regional Housing Needs
The State has placed an urgent emphasis on housing of all types. Santa
Allocation (RHNA)
Ana's RHNA for the current General Plan Housing Element cycle (6"' Cycle),
which extends from 2021-2029, includes 3,137 housing units. This
allocation is for housing units to be constructed to support the anticipated
growth in the City over this period.
The City has a proven track record of not only planning for housing but
issuing building permits for the construction of housing at all affordability
categories as demonstrated by exceeding its 5th Cycle (2014-2021) RHNA
by over 2,300 percent. The City is also on pace to meet or well exceed its
affordable housing and other residential development requirements for the
6I" Cycle, far outpacing any city in Orange County, as evidenced by issuing
4,441 permits for housing units across all affordability categories, as
detailed in the latest (2024) Housing Element Annual Progress Report,
fulfilling 100 percent of its RHNA for above moderate housing. However,
very -low, low, and moderate housing numbers have not been met and the
Project would assist with AHOCO in -lieu fees that can be utilized to target
the remaining housing categories. SP-6 would assist the City in achieving
its housing goals in a location where high intensity urban development is
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 15
Key Issue Analysis
both achievable and consistent with the current and envisioned surrounding
urban form.
Amendment Application No. 2025-01
Pursuant to Sections 41-659 through 41-667 of the SAMC, the approval of an amendment
application (zone change) requires approval of an ordinance by the City Council.
Amendment applications may be granted when it can be shown that the request is
consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the SAMC, with previous
amendments, and it is in substantial conformance with the General Plan. The Applicant
is requesting approval of AA No. 2025-01 in order to change the zoning designation of
the Project Site from SD-48 to SP-6 in order to guide future development of the Project
Site consistent with the GPU and SBSFA.
Existing Zoning District Designation
Proposed Zoning District Designation
The SD-48 zoning district for the Project Site was established in 1989 for the purposes of
facilitating the development of the South Coast Plaza Village. The SD-48 zoning district
does not allow for residential uses and does not provide the means to achieve the goals
and objectives of the Project or the General Plan land designation of DC-5 to produce a
dynamic mixed -use village with residential, commercial, and open space land uses.
Therefore, approval of the requested amendment application to establish SP-6 is required
to implement the vision of the Project and to establish consistency with the General Plan.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06
Subdivision requests are governed by Chapter 34 (Subdivisions) of the SAMC. Pursuant
to sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the California Subdivision Map Act (SMA), applications
for vesting tentative tract maps are approved when it can be shown that findings can be
made in support of the request. Specifically, findings related to the proposal need to be
made that find the project is consistent with the General Plan, the site is physically suitable
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 16
for the type and density of the proposed project, the proposed project will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
or their habitat, the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems, or the
proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or
use of the property. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis,
which, in turn, forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. In
analyzing the Applicant's request, staff believes that the following analysis warrants
approval of VTTM No. 2025-06.
The Applicant is seeking approval of VTTM No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to
subdivide the Project Site into six lots, attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The subdivision will
allow the financing of individual components of the Project Site due to differences in
phasing and funding mechanisms for commercial, residential, mixed -use, service -
oriented, parking, and open space components of the Project. The map also details
roadway and utility improvements, as well as creation of new private roadways on the
Project Site, in order to develop the Project Site as a pedestrian -oriented, mixed -use
urban village. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be adopted to define
the operating and maintenance requirements. They will also maintain a property owner's
association responsible for maintenance and enforcement of the CC&Rs and will ensure
that parking and access can be shared throughout the entire Project Site.
In reviewing the Project, staff determined that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent
with the various provisions of the GPU, SAMC, and SMA. The Project Site is physically
suitable for the type and density of the proposed Project, and the design and
improvements of the proposed Project will not cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. Lastly, the design
and improvements of the proposed Project will not cause serious public health problems,
and will not conflict with any easements necessary for public access through or use of the
property within the proposed Project. The Project is located in an urbanized area that is
proposed for redevelopment with additional urbanization in the form of commercial,
service, residential, and open space land uses, and the Project Site is already served by
infrastructure necessary and will be enhanced to support the proposed development.
General Plan Consistencv
The Project implements the vision and objectives of the SBSFA by transforming an auto -
oriented shopping center to a walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -friendly urban village
that incorporates a mix of high -intensity office and residential living with experiential
commercial uses. The Project is consistent with the allowed intensity and density of the
DC-5 land use designation of the GPU. The Project also supports several goals and
policies of the GPU. Specifically, the Project is consistent with the following goals and
policies:
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 17
• Policy CM-1.6 (Recreation on Private Property) of the Community Element, of
promoting development and use of privately -owned recreation and entertainment
facilities that help meet the needs of Santa Ana residents as the Project would
include publicly accessible open space that would be made available to the general
public through a public access easement with the City and would remain in effect
through the life of the Project. Additional information regarding the required public
access easement is discussed further in the Development Agreement Section of
this report.
• Policy CN-1.6 (New and Infill Residential Development) of the Conservation
Element encourages development that is mixed use, pedestrian friendly, transit
oriented, and clustered around centers. The Project would introduce a mixed -use
urban village and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable,
bike -friendly, and transit -oriented. The Project would create a commercial core
providing for sufficient local serving and destination retail uses, residential
opportunities, workplaces, and entertainment amenities to enable residents and
shoppers to reduce reliance on the automobile.
• Policy EP-3.4 (Complete Communities) of the Economic Prosperity Element
encourages the development of "complete communities" that provide a range of
housing, services, amenities, and transportation options that support the retention
and attraction of skilled workforce and employment. The Project would implement
the vision of the SBSFA of creating an urban village that includes a range of uses.
The Project would promote a business -friendly environment where businesses
thrive and would facilitate a "complete community" with a range of housing,
services, and amenities and transportation options to support the retention and
attraction of a skilled workforce and employment base.
• Policy HE-1.5 (Infrastructure and Public Services) of the Housing Element (HE)
encourages the development of quality community facilities, physical
infrastructure, traffic management and parking control, and other public services
to promote the livability, safety, and vitality of neighborhoods. The Project would
provide safe access points for pedestrians and bicyclists and would include new
traffic signals along Bear Street and Plaza Drive to improve traffic management.
The PMP would also assist in controlling parking impacts.
• Policy HE-2.6 (Housing Design) of the HE requires excellence in architectural
design through the use of materials and colors, building treatments, landscaping,
open space, parking, and environmentally sensitive ("green") building and design
practices. One primary objective of SP-6 is to bring high quality design to the
Project Site, focusing on green standards, durable materials, visual integrity, and
timeless architecture. The Project would incorporate quality design, from the larger
design of the commercial and residential structures to the small details of
materials, landscaping, pedestrian network, and communal gathering spaces.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 18
• Policy LU-2.1 (Employment Opportunities) of the Land Use Element (LU)
encourages a broad spectrum of land uses and development that offer
employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana residents. The Project
would include a mix of land uses that will serve as a catalyst for reinvestment,
stimulate economic activity, commerce, and new development opportunities in and
around the SBSFA. The Project would also have a positive contribution to the local
economy through new capital investment, the creation of jobs, and the expansion
of the tax base through the Project's long-term investment and commitment to the
City of Santa Ana.
• Policy LU-2-3 (Supportive Spaces) of the LU element encourages providing a
diversity of land uses that support residents, visitors, and businesses, such as
open space, areas for community gatherings, and outdoor entertainment venues.
One of the primary goals of the Project is to foster a neighborly environment where
residents can live, work, and recreate in a vibrant village community. The Project
would encourage walkability, safety, shopping, and dining, and would create
community centric spaces for residents of all ages and abilities.
• Policy LU-2.10 (Smart Growth) of the LU element emphasizes focusing high
density residential in mixed -use villages, designated planning focus areas,
downtown Santa Ana, and along major travel corridors. The Project is located with
the SBSFA, a planned focus area. The Project would achieve the vision of the
SBSFA of creating high density housing within and along a mixed -use village that
would be the hub of activity, designed as a park -like setting that would create an
intimate and relaxing environment.
• Policy M-1.2 (Balanced Multimodal Network) of the Mobility Element (M)
encourages providing a balanced and equitable multimodal circulation network
that reflects current and changing needs. The Project would accommodate a
variety of transportation within and to/from the Project Site, including automobiles,
walking, bikes, and rideshare. The Project would include an internal pedestrian
network providing multiple access points along Bear Street, Sunflower Avenue,
and Plaza Drive. Additionally, the Project would include for new bike lanes through
and around the Project Site and bicycle parking stations.
• Policy OS-1.9 (New Development) of the Open Space (OS) Element requires all
new development to provide adequate parks and open space, including via
parkland dedication or development fees, in order to meet the City's Park standard.
Ensure that new development includes pedestrian and multi -modal travel ways to
promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient
and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new
public parkland over the collection of impact fees. The Project would provide
approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space, consisting of both
active and passive open space that would be open to the general public through a
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 19
public access easement with the City and would remain in effect through the life of
the Project. Additionally, the Project would require 90 square feet of private open
space and 100 square feet of active or passive open space per unit. The Project
also prioritizes open space as a key placemaking feature of the development.
• Policy OS-2.1 (Recreation Variety) of the OS element encourages a variety of
recreation facilities and activities to meet the diverse needs of the community. It
also encourages the need for indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities, as well
as traditional and trending activities. The Project would feature key open space
areas. The Promenade has been designed to draw pedestrians from the residential
area west of Bear Street, South Plaza Drive, and beyond to create a distinct
destination along Sunflower Avenue. The Square is intended to be an intimate hub
for public gathering, events, and relaxation from day to night. Various seating
areas, water features, and experiential lighting and art are envisioned to activate
the Square. A Fitness Loop would encircle and thread through the Project Site and
include special markers to provide a continuous fitness path for residents and
neighbors. The Recreation Lawn has been designed as an area where the
community and their pets can gather and relax in a low -water -grass space.
Moreover, the Project is consistent with and supports Implementation Action No. LU-2.12
(Distinctive Districts) of the LU that requires the development and adoption of specific
plans or corridor plans for each of the five focus areas that establish regulations and
design standards. A full list of all applicable General Plan goals and policies that support
the Project are attached hereto as Appendix B of Exhibit 7.
Development Agreement No. 2025-01
The Applicant has requested approval of a development agreement, DA No. 2025-01.
Development agreements are contracts negotiated between project proponents and
public agencies, such as the City of Santa Ana, that govern the land uses that may be
allowed in a particular project (Gov. Code Section 65864 et seq.). Although a
development agreement is subject to negotiation, allowable land uses must be consistent
with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative body through its general plan
and consistent with any applicable specific plan, such as the proposed SP-6 (Gov. Code
Section 65867.5). In addition, approval of a development agreement, requires adoption
of an ordinance by the City Council.
To evaluate DA No. 2025-01 and identify priorities for agreement terms, the City Council
formed an Ad Hoc committee in March 2025 comprised of three City Council members.
The Ad Hoc committee met to review the Applicant's proposed terms, identify community
priorities, and ensure that the final agreement addressed the Ad Hoc committee's
priorities. While review of a development agreement is a private contractual process, the
extensive community engagement process and routine staff meetings with City Council
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 20
members ensured that community priorities were effectively communicated to the Ad Hoc
committee and informed the negotiation process.
DA No. 2025-01 contains an initial term (duration), extension process, community
benefits, indemnification, monitoring and reporting, inclusionary housing, open space,
infrastructure, modifications, and other relevant items, attached hereto for reference as
Exhibit 8. These terms have been crafted to ensure the Project is of high -quality with
positive financial impacts to the City. Table 6 provides a summary of major deal points in
DA No. 2025-01.
Table 6: DA Manor Deal Points
Deal Point
Ad Hoc Committee
Proposed by DA
Recommendation
Term (Duration) and
One 20-year term, and one five-
Applicant has agreed to this term and
Extension
year automatic extension.
proposed agreement was modified to
Extension subject to
capture this change.
construction commencement of
no less than 50,000 square feet
of commercial area and 360
residential dwelling units.
Timing of
No building permits for
Applicant has agreed to this term and
Development
residential units shall be issued
proposed agreement was modified to
in excess of 360 residential units
capture this change.
until building permits are
obtained for at least 50,000
square feet of commercial
space.
Community Benefit
Accept Community Benefit
Applicant has revised the proposed
Payments
Payment of $9,300,000 but
agreement to provide the Community
provide a larger upfront payment
Benefit Payment in four payments instead
and provide payments in less
of five and increased Payment No. 1 by
intervals.
$500,000. Payments will be provided as
follows:
• Payment No. 1 of $2,500,000 prior to
demolition permits being issued;
• Payment No. 2 of $3,600,000 prior to
permit issuance of Phase 2
• Payment No. 3 of $1,300,000 prior to
permit issuance of Phase 3
• Payment No. 4 of $1,900,000 prior to
permit issuance of Phase 4
Open Space
Accept the construction of 7.5
Applicant has agreed to these terms.
acres of publicly accessible
open space to satisfy the City's
The SEIR prepared for the Project
park provision and fee
identifies that the Project will result in a
requirements. The developer
demand for 11.4 acres of parkland, which
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 21
Deal Point
Ad Hoc Committee
Recommendation
Proposed by DA
must enter into a public access
is 3.9 acres more than the 7.5 acres being
easement for the publicly
proposed. However, the Project will remain
accessible open space, which
consistent with the General Plan pursuant
must be recorded against the
to Table OS-3 (Open Space Element
Property Site for the life of the
Implementation) of the General Plan,
Project.
Action Nos. 1.7 and 1.10. Action No. 1.7,
which recognizes the challenges and
difficulty in creating new open space and
parklands in a built -out environment and
provides for a reduction in on -site open
space by giving credits for park land for
public use as an incentive toward
developer creation of open space areas
that are accessible to the public. Action
No. 1.10 encourages collaboration with
property owners to provide public access
and programming on private open space.
Inclusionary Housing
Accept payment of $5 per
Applicant has agreed to these terms.
Fee
square feet of habitable space
Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-1903(a), the
Applicant has proposed a development
agreement to comply with Section 41-1904
of the SAMC, allowing payment of in -lieu
fees. SAMC Section 41-1904 provides
options to satisfy the AHOCO, including
on -site units, off -site units, and payment of
in -lieu fees. For projects containing 20 or
more units, the in -lieu fee is as high as $15
per square feet, but may be as low as $5
per square feet if determined by a
development agreement or if using skilled
and trained workforce. The in -lieu fees for
the Project are estimated to be
$7,100,000.
Overrule of Airport Land Use Commission's Inconsistency Determination
Pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the PUC, on June 19, 2025, the ALUC for Orange County
held a public hearing on the Project and found the Project to be inconsistent with the
AELUP for JWA per:
• Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP for JWA which states that a Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate to a Consistency
determination by the ALUC and that the Commission may find a project
Inconsistent based on an Obstruction determination; and
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 22
• Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP for JWA which states that "within the boundaries of the
AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which ...
permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the
continued operation of the airport; or permits activities or facilities that would affect
adversely aeronautical operations."
As a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing,
choose to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency by following the procedure
established in PUC sections 21676 and 21676.5. As part of the GPU, the City Council
adopted a resolution on April 19, 2022, in accordance with the procedure established in
PUC sections 21676 and 21676.5 to overrule the ALUC's finding that the GPU was
inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA. The action to overrule the ALUC's decision on the
GPU was based on the desire to advance the vision for the South Bristol Street and 55
Freeway/Dyer Road focus areas, which envision a dynamic, mixed -use environment with
building heights and massing ranging from six to 25 stories.
At their July 15, 2025, meeting, City Council authorized staff to initiate the process for the
City Council to consider the Project and to propose overriding the determination made by
the ALUC by (1) issuing a Notice of Intent to Overrule and (2) giving notice to the ALUC
of its decision to overrule as required by PUC Section 21676(b). On July 16, 2025, the
Planning Division provided a Notice of Intent to Overrule the Commission's determination
with findings to the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. On August 12, 2025,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics responded to the City's Notice of Intent, attached hereto
as Exhibit 13 for City Council's review and consideration, and on August 15, 2025, ALUC
responded to the City's Notice of Intent, attached hereto as Exhibit 14 for City Council's
review and consideration.
PUC Section 21676 permits the City Council, by a two-thirds vote of the members
constituting a quorum, to overrule the ALUC's determination if it finds that the proposed
project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. The Act states: "It is
the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this
State and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California noise standards... and to prevent the creation of new noise
and safety problems."
Based on staff's review of the Project, the Project will not adversely impact the operations
of the airport, the future development plans that exists for the airport, the approaches to
the airport runways, create noise concerns, or create public health, safety, or welfare
concerns. Additionally, the Project falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be
a community norm. Multiple taller structures than those proposed in the Project Site exist
closer to the airport and its runways, notably in the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and
Newport Beach. Out of an abundance of caution and consistent with past practice, the
Applicant will be required to record an avigation/aviation easement with both the County
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 23
and the City to prevent claims, actions, or lawsuits for nuisance or interference with the
use of the property against the City and JWA.
Community Enpa_pement and Public Notification
Due to the complexity and scale of the Project, public outreach and notification were
conducted using a variety of manners to engage broad segments of the community.
Community engagement and public notification processes for the Project exceeded the
minimum requirements of the City. Upon submittal of the proposed Project to the City,
staff met with the Applicant to provide information about the various neighborhood
associations, business groups, and other communities surrounding the Project Site. Staff
and the Applicant routinely attended community meetings in the vicinity of the Project Site
to provide updates, receive feedback, and answer questions. Details of the public
engagement component of the Project is also documented within SP-6, attached hereto
as Exhibit 7.
Sunshine Ordinance Community Meetings and Additional Community Meetings
In accordance with Article 11.11 (Public Meetings for Certain Development Projects) of
Chapter 2 (Administration) of the SAMC, the Project hosted its first Sunshine Ordinance
community meeting on August 23, 2023. Approximately 150 people attended the meeting,
which was held at the Westin South Coast Plaza. The meeting was led by the Applicant's
community liaison whom gave a presentation on the Project before opening the floor to
questions. The majority of the questions from attendees focused on traffic and parking.
There were also questions about rent versus for sale housing, how the Project would
address affordable housing, and the viability of office space. Questions were addressed
by the Applicant's team. Meeting materials providing additional information on the Project
including location and history, circulation and parking, architecture and design,
infrastructure systems, land use, and vision and guiding principles were available
throughout the room. Participants were also able to provide comments and questions via
comment cards and sign up for email updates. Following the meeting, the meeting
materials were made available on the City's Project webpage.
The second required Sunshine Ordinance meeting was held on November 8, 2023.
Approximately 80 people attended the second meeting, which was held at the Westin
South Coast Plaza. The Applicant's community liaison led the meeting and gave a
presentation on the Project before opening the floor for questions. The questions covered
topics regarding traffic and parking, project schedule and construction, affordable housing
and rents, and access to future amenities. Similar to the first meeting, participants were
able to provide comments and questions via comment cards and sign up for email
updates. The Project email and website were also promoted. Following the meeting, the
meeting materials were made available on the City's Project webpage.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 24
In addition to the required Sunshine Ordinance meetings, the Applicant has held and
attended over 100 community meetings, including attending and presenting at large and
small group meetings and individual one-on-one meetings. The Applicant has made
themselves available for feedback from the general public and has returned countless
phone calls, messages, and other correspondences. The Project has a dedicated
community liaison with relationships in the community who has provided and continues
to ensure up-to-date information is available to all members of the community. Lastly, City
staff have made themselves available on a regular basis to answer the community's
questions about the Project through in -person and virtual meetings.
Online Content
As required by the Sunshine Ordinance, the City also established a Project webpage. The
webpage has been routinely updated with Sunshine Ordinance meeting materials, Project
information, key meeting dates, draft environmental documents, and the draft specific
plan. The webpage also contains the City's contact information with a direct phone
number and email address to the Case Planner. In addition, the Applicant created a
Project website and email to provide a broad overview of the Project and gather input
from those who could not attend in -person meetings.
Planning Commission Work -Study Session
A Planning Commission work-study session was held on June 23, 2025, during which
members of the Planning Commission were provided a presentation on the Project, its
status at the time of the work-study session, and an opportunity to provide general
comments and pose questions. The public comment portion of the meeting was opened
to allow for any Project -related public comment on the Project.
Mandatory Public Hearing Notification Measures
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State
regulations. Copies of the public notice, including a 2,000-foot notification radius map,
and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 11. In addition, even though the Project Site
is not located within the boundaries of any neighborhood association, staff contacted the
provided contacts for the Sandpointe, South Coast, Republic Homes, Metro Classic,
Morning Sunwood, Thornton Park, Sunwood Central, and the Rosewood Baker
neighborhood associations to ensure they were aware of the Project and public hearings.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
GPU Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final PEIR")
In April 2022, the City certified the GPU Final PEIR (SCH No. 2020029087) and adopted
the GPU. The GPU Final PEIR is a program environmental impact report that examines
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 25
the existing environment and the total scope of environmental effects that would occur as
a result of buildout of the GPU land uses. The GPU Final PEIR comprehensively
evaluated the potential environmental impacts stemming from adoption of the GPU and
subsequent implementing projects. Moreover, this type of environmental document
allows subsequent implementing activities, such as the proposed Project, to be evaluated
through "tiering." Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs, such
as the GPU Final PEIR, with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site -specific EIRs
incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues
specific to the EIR subsequently prepared, such as in the case of the Project's
Supplemental EIR. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is (1) from a general
plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site -
specific EIR, (2) from an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR
or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage.
The Project Site is located within the SBSFA and has a land use designation of DC-5,
which has a maximum FAR of 5.0, a maximum of 125 dwelling du/ac, and a maximum
height of 25 stories. This level of redevelopment was included in the GPU Final PEIR
buildout, and applicable mitigation measures were identified, as necessary, to reduce
impacts. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density and intensity
does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed in the certified GPU EIR and
complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)).
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
In compliance with CEQA, and as required by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a SEIR
that evaluates the potential of the proposed Project to result in new or substantially greater
environmental impacts than previously identified in the GPU Final PEIR. The City's
certified PEIR examines the impacts associated with buildout of the Santa Ana General
Plan. Once a Program EIR is prepared, subsequent activities within the program or
changes to the program must be evaluated to determine whether additional CEQA
documentation needs to be prepared.
The Project Site is within the SBSFA and development of the site was analyzed in the
GPU Final PEIR at a programmatic level at 5.0 FAR and 125 du/ac assumption per the
GPU DC-5 land use designation. The Project proposes a phased redevelopment of the
Project Site, consistent with the DC-5 land use designation, and the City conducted
project -level analysis to determine if the development of the Project would involve new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the impacts that were
previously identified in the GPU Final PEIR. Following this project -level analysis, the City
of Santa Ana prepared an SEIR that evaluated the potential of the proposed Project to
result in new or substantially greater impacts than previously identified; applied the
mitigation measures prescribed in the GPU FEIR; and where new or more significant
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 26
impacts were identified, included Project specific mitigation measures. In addition, where
impacts could not be mitigated to below a less than significant level, the SEIR made new
significant and unavoidable findings. The Project's SEIR also provides information
regarding short-term, long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of
the Project. It identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would minimize
or eliminate the potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the
Project.
SEIR's Notice of Preparation
On November 3, 2023, the City sent to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
(LCI) and each responsible trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (NOP), stating that a
SEIR would be prepared for the Project. A total of nine comments were received during
the 30-day NOP review period which began on November 3, 2023, and ended on
December 3, 2023.
SEIR Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to PRC Section 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c)(1) and 15083,
the City hosted a public scoping meeting on November 15, 2023, to solicit comments on
the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project. Approximately 15
residents attended the meeting and raised concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, and
construction noise and debris. These issues were addressed in the Draft SEIR. In
addition, participants were encouraged to submit comments on paper or via email to
ensure inclusion in the draft SEIR and environmental analyses.
Draft and Final SEIR Public Review and Availability
The City determined at the onset of review and preparation based on analyses, the GPU
Final PEIR, existing site conditions, setting, and responses to the NOP, that the Project
would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental
topic areas and that no further, detailed analysis of these topics was required in the SEIR:
Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Mineral
Resources, and Wildfire. In particular, with respect to aesthetics, PRC Section 21099
provides that "aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be
considered significant impacts on the environment." Here, the proposed Project is located
in a Transit Priority Area and therefore the SEIR did not include a detailed analysis of
aesthetics. However, a discussion on the topic is included in the Land Use and Planning
section of the SEIR.
For each topical area of potential significance, the SEIR evaluates impacts of the Project,
what was evaluated by the GPU Final PEIR, mitigation measures already in place and
adopted by the GPU Final PEIR's MMRP, and project -specific mitigation measures.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 27
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe "any significant
impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of
insignificance." Potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and mitigation
measures are discussed in detail throughout Chapter 4 of the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR
determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than
significant level for the following resource areas: air quality, cultural resources, geology
and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources.
However, the Draft SEIR concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to recreation. The impacts do not increase the severity of the impacts identified
in the GPU Final PEIR. As detailed in Section 4.12 of the SEIR (Recreation), the City
currently has approximately 1.2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per every
1,000 residents, which is below the City's parkland aspirational standard of three acres
of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the City's parkland aspirational standard of
three acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents, buildout of the
Project results in a need for approximately 11.4 additional acres of parkland to serve the
estimated 3,815 new residents of the Project Site. The 7.5 acres of publicly accessible
open space by the Project would be approximately 3.9 acres less than the City's parkland
aspirational standard. Although the proposed Project and cumulative projects would be
required to provide park and recreational facilities, private open space, and/or pay in -lieu
fees as required by the SAMC, the impacts related to the amount of parkland within the
City would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts related to parks and
recreational facilities would be significant.
The SEIR also evaluated the following alternatives to the proposed Project that would
feasibly avoid or lessen the proposed Project's significant environmental impacts while
attaining most of the proposed Project's objectives: Alternative 1 (No project/No build),
Alternative 2 (Reduced project alternative that reduces the commercial component to
50,000 square feet and eliminates the 300,000-square-foot office), and Alternative 3
(Reduced project alternative with no subterranean parking that would reduce the
proposed residential units to 1,000 units, reduce the commercial component to 25,000
square feet, and eliminate subterranean parking). A detailed analysis of environmental
impacts and feasibility of each alternative is included in the Final SEIR.
A MMRP has been prepared for the Project and is attached to the resolution certifying the
Final SEIR No. 2025-01. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be necessary
should the City Council decide to approve the Project because of the significant and
unavoidable impacts to recreation. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Findings for the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit A to Exhibit 1.
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City filed a Notice of Completion
with LCI, State Clearinghouse, indicating that the Draft SEIR had been completed and
was available for public review. On April 17, 2025, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 28
Draft SEIR was published and the Draft SEIR was circulated for a 52-day public review
and comment period from April 17, 2025, through June 29, 2025. During the public
comment period, copies of the Draft SEIR and technical appendices were available for
review and inspection at City Hall, on the City's project webpage, and at the Southwest
Senior Center. The City received a total of eight comments from various individuals,
organizations, or government agencies during this period.
On August 8, 2025, the City released the Final SEIR, which contains the Draft SEIR, all
technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft SEIR, all written comment letters
received on the Draft SEIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on
the Draft SEIR, and errata to the Draft SEIR and technical appendices. In accordance
with PRC Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies that
submitted comments during the 45-day review period will be forwarded to those agencies
at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final SEIR by the City Council, with copies of
the Final SEIR document. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b), lead agencies
may provide an opportunity for review of the Final SEIR by the public or by commenting
agencies before a project is approved, but is not required to do so; the Final SEIR is
available for review on the City's website at https://www.santa-ana.org/supplemental-
environmental-impact-report-the-village-santa-ana-specific-plan/, at the Southwest
Senior Center, and at City Hall.
Staff recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR and adopt the MMRP for
the Project, and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The entire Final SEIR and all required components, including comments,
responses, detailed analyses, and the MMRP, are contained within Exhibit 6 of this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The GPU Land Use Element requires projects proposing a zone change, such as the
proposed project, to evaluate economic, fiscal, and community benefits impacts through
various analyses (Policy Nos. LU-2.4, LU-3.1, and Implementation Action No. LU-1.2). In
accordance with the GPU, the Applicant prepared a market, fiscal, and economic
analysis, attached hereto as Appendix C of Exhibit 7, that was peer -reviewed by a City
consultant. The analysis concludes that given the amenity -rich environment of the Project
Site, its location in a market area with higher than average rents, and the relatively low
vacancy rates of nearby mixed -use and multiple -family residential communities, the
Project's residential, commercial, and office components could be absorbed by the
market area. The other reports' conclusions about the proposed Project and its impacts
are outlined in Table 7 below.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 29
Table 7: Key Economic, Fiscal, and Community Benefits Findings
Topic
I Existing Site
Proposed Project
Net Change
EconomicKey
One -Time Impacts
.
Not applicable
8,658 city -captured
Not
jobs, including direct,
applicable
indirect, and induced
full- and part-time jobs;
$700 million city -
captured labor income;
and $1.1 billion city -
captured economic
output
Recurring (Ongoing)
Estimated 280 jobs
1,167 city -captured
Increase of 887 jobs.
Impacts
jobs, including direct,
indirect, and induced
full- and part-time jobs;
$133 million city -
captured labor income;
and $119 million city -
captured economic
output
Jobs -Housing Balance
156,000 jobs city-wide;
157,167 jobs city-wide;
1,167 jobs resulting
83,005 housing units
84,588 housing units
from the project; 1,583
city-wide; and 1.88
city-wide; and 1.86
new housing units; 0.02
jobs -housing balance
jobs -housing balance
decline jobs -housing
balance, resulting in a
positive shift toward the
direction of a 1:1 job -
housing balance
ImpactsKey Fiscal
Total Annual Site
Revenues to the City's
$525,000
$5,493,100
$4,968,100
General Fund
Total Annual Site
Expenditures from the
$190,000
$2,824,500
$2,634,500
City's General Fund
Cost of Services
Net Annual Site
General Fund Fiscal
$335,000
$2,668,600
$2,333,600
Impact to the City
Land Residual Value Findings
Total Net Assessed
Value (NAV)
Not applicable
$1,265,000,000
Not applicable
Total Costs
Not applicable
$1,100,000,000
Not applicable
Excess of NAV over
Costs
Not applicable
$165,000,000
Not applicable
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 30
Topic
I Existing Site
Proposed Project
Net Change
ImpactsCommunity Benefits
Housing Construction
None
1,583 units
1,583 units, assisting
the City with meeting its
RHNA allocations
Community Benefit
None
$9.3 million
$9.3 million for
Payment
community benefits that
the City Council can
determine how to utilize
Affordable Housing In-
None
$7.1 million in in -lieu
$7.1 million in in -lieu
Lieu Funds
fees
fees that can be used
for the construction of
affordable housing in
the City
Publicly Accessible
None
7.5 acres
7.5 acres of publicly
Open Space
accessible open space
that will be made
available to the general
public through an
easement
Urban Design and
Traditional, suburban
Contemporary, iconic
Enhancement of the
Image of the City
shopping center with
mixed -use urban village
City at a key gateway
surface parking
with mid- and high-rise
intersection (Bristol
structures, urban
Street and Sunflower
village street network,
Avenue), capitalizing
bicycle lanes, on -street
on the success of
parking, outdoor dining
South Coast Plaza and
areas, and high -quality
adjacency to the 1-405
furnishings
freeway
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution (1) certifying the Final SEIR No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087) for
the Project, (2) adopting Environmental Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Project, (3) adopting a MMRP for the Project,
and (4) approving the Project.
2. Ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2025-01 establishing The
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6) and approving a zone change
for the Property Site from Specific Development No. 48 (SD-48) to Specific Plan
No. 6.
3. Ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2025-01.
4. Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06 (County Map No.
2023-159), as conditioned.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Entitlements and Development Agreement (1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue)
September 16, 2025
Page 31
5. Resolution overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's
determination that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP of JWA, including
supportive findings.
6. Link to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
7. Link to The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan and Appendices
8. Development Agreement
9. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06
10. Link to Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Materials
11. Responses to Planning Commission Comments Received Prior to the 3:30 p.m.
deadline on August 11, 2025
12. Link to Planning Commission Agenda Packet
13. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Response to City's Notice of Intent
14.ALUC Response to City's Notice of Intent
15. Copy of Public Notice
Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director of Planning and Building
Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nunez, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTAANA: (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAGE
SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SCH NO.
2020029087); (2) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND
(3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in April 2022, the City of Santa Ana ("City") certified the General Plan
Update (GPU) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 202002908) and
adopted its GPU; and
WHEREAS, the GPU Land Use Element guides development by designating land
uses, evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the
GPU, and addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that would minimize
or eliminate these impacts; and
WHEREAS, The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project ("Project") site is located
within the GPU South Bristol Street Focus Area (SBSFA) and is consistent with the GPU
land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes 11 addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641,
and 1661 West Sunflower Avenue; 3820, 3840, and 3951 South Plaza Drive; and 3811
and 3851 South Bear Street) and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21,
412-451-01, 412-451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561
W. Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
WHEREAS, the Project entails, among other things: (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site; (2) the establishment of a new The Village Santa Ana
Specific Plan (SP No. 6) and a change of zone for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP No. 6 designation; (3) redevelopment of the Project
Site into an urban village consisting of up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet of
retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office space, including 7.5 acres of publicly
accessible open space and onsite parking and landscaping; and (4) approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 2025- 06; and
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the
GPU FEIR is required to evaluate the potential of the Project to result in new or
substantially greater environmental impacts than previously identified in the GPU FEIR,
and therefore did not prepare an initial study in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15063(a); and
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on November 3,
2023, the City sent to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and each
responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was also published
in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Ana,
stating that a SEIR would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, nine comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA
Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting on
November 15, 2023, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the
proposed Project, and two (2) written comments were received; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR)
(SCH No. 2020029087) was prepared for the Project addressing comments received in
response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project's potentially significant
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR determined that mitigation measures were required to
mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: air quality,
cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant
and unavoidable impacts relating to recreation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of
Completion (NOC) was prepared and filed with the Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation on April 17, 2025; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City
provided Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR to the public at the same time that the City
sent the NOC to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation on April 17, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft SEIR and
technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City's
website, and at the City of Santa Ana Southwest Senior Center; and
WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft
SEIR was circulated for a 52-day public review and comment period from April 17, 2025,
to June 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, the City received eight (8) written comment letters on the Draft SEIR;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days
prior to the City's consideration of the Final SEIR, on August 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, the City released the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR, all technical appendices
prepared in support thereof; all documents incorporated by reference, all written
comments letters received on the Draft SEIR, written responses to all written comments
letters and verbal comments received on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR and
technical appendices, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted the public
hearing to consider the Final SEIR and the Project, and solicited comments on the
document. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's
consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council
certify the SEIR for the Project, adopt Environmental Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Project, adopt a MMRP for the Project, and approve the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to considerthe Final SEIR and the Project, at which hearing members of the public
were afforded an opportunity to comment and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were
sufficiently analyzed in the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth
the basis for its decision and recommendations on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA
Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the Final
SEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently
analyzes the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, and the Final SEIR
analyzes a range of feasible alternatives to address whether these effects can be reduced
to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to
this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written
evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the
Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 3 of 7
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Project's environmental topics that would result
in no impact, as identified in the Final SEIR, are described in Chapter 4 of the Findings of
Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Project's environmental impacts that are less
than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures, as
identified in the Final SEIR, are described in Chapter 4 of the Findings of Fact, attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Project's impacts that, without mitigation, would
result in significant adverse impacts, and that upon implementation of the mitigation
measures provided in the Final SEIR, would be considered less than significant, are
described in Chapter 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Project's impacts that, even with mitigation
measures, would remain significant and unavoidable are described in Chapter 6 of the
Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the Final SEIR and
set forth herein, are described in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the Findings of Fact, attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would
result from the proposed Project are described in Chapter 7 of the Findings of Fact,
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts and commitment of
resources resulting from the proposed Project are described in Chapter 8 of the Findings
of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the reasonable alternatives to the Project are
described in Chapter 9 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that indicates the benefits
of the Project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental effects is described in
Chapter 10 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and necessary
to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Project to a level of less than significant
are set forth in the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, prior to acting on the Project, the City has heard, been presented with,
reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including but not limited to the Final SEIR and all oral and written evidence presented to
it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 4 of 7
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by City Council
and no additional information submitted to the City Council have produced substantial
new information requiring recirculation of the Final SEIR or additional environmental
review of the Project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the Final
SEIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the Final SEIR is an
accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final SEIR reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City, acting as lead agency for the Project.
Section 3. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or
any new information of "substantial importance," as defined by State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Final SEIR that
would require recirculation of the Final SEIR.
Section 4. The City Council hereby:
A. Certifies the Final SEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
B. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, after balancing the
significant and unavoidable recreation impacts of the proposed Project
against the benefits of the proposed Project.
C. Adopts the MMRP attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B,
consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; makes
implementation of the mitigation measures in the MMRP a condition of
approval of the Project; and finds in the event of any inconsistencies
between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the
MMRP shall control.
D. Directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted
with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State
Clearinghouse within five working days of the City Council's final Project
approval.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 5 of 7
Section 5. The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Planning Manager
is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings. This information is provided
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
ADOPTED this day of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
2025.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No.
2025-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana on 2025.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 7 of 7
CEQA Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087
Lead Agency:
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
August 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Statutory Requirements...............................................................................................1-1
1.2 Document Format........................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings.....................................................1-3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT SUMMARY... .............................................................................2-1
2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval..............................................................2-1
2.2 Agreements, Permits, and Approvals..........................................................................2-2
2.3 Project Objectives........................................................................................................2-3
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...................................3-1
CHAPTER 4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
...........................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................4-3
4.3 Air Quality....................................................................................................................4-4
4.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................4-6
4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................4-8
4.6 Energy.......................................................................................................................4-10
4.7 Geology and Soils.....................................................................................................4-12
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................4-13
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................4-15
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................4-20
4.11 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................................4-25
4.12 Mineral Resources.....................................................................................................4-27
4.13 Noise.........................................................................................................................4-28
4.14 Population and Housing............................................................................................4-29
4.15 Public Services..........................................................................................................4-30
4.16 Transportation...........................................................................................................4-34
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................4-37
4.18 Wildfire.......................................................................................................................4-45
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITH MITIGATION
INCORPORATED........................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Air Quality....................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................5-6
5.3 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................5-8
5.4 Noise.........................................................................................................................5-13
5.5 Tribal Cultural Resources..........................................................................................5-16
CHAPTER 6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..........................6-1
6.1 Recreation...................................................................................................................6-1
CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES............................................................................................................................... 7-1
CHAPTER 8 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS........................................8-1
CHAPTER 9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................ ^ '
9.1 Discussion of Alternatives Considered but Rejected...................................................9-2
9.1.1 Buildout of the Zoning Designation Alternative....................................................9-2
9.1.2 Off -Site Alternative...............................................................................................9-3
9.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis...................................................................9-3
9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build........................................................................9-4
9.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative...........................................................9-5
9.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative .......... 9-6
9.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative..........................................................................9-7
CHAPTER 10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS............................................10-1
10.1 Introduction................................................................................................................10-1
10.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts...............................................................................10-2
10.3 Project Benefits.........................................................................................................10-2
10.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................10-3
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
These California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations are for The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project, herein referred to as the
"Project." The City of Santa Ana (lead agency) prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to the City's General Plan Update (GPU) Final Program EIR (GPU PEIR) (State
Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) for the Project. The GPU PEIR was certified by the City on April
19, 2022.
1.1 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
CEQA requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with
certification of an EIR prior to approval of a project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). The State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings
are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In short, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 (a) and (b), CEQA requires that the
lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate
significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of a proposed
project. However, project mitigation or alternatives are not required, where they are infeasible or
where the responsibility for modifying a proposed project lies with another agency.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), when a lead agency approves a project with significant effects
that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, the public agency is required to find that
specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)
states that:
If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits... of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Supplemental EIR for the Project is composed of the following elements:
• The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project Draft Supplemental EIR and Technical
Appendices (April 2025);
• The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project Final Supplemental EIR (August 2025); and
• Santa Ana General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU PEIR),
SCH No. 2020029087.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
The Findings of Fact is organized into the following sections
Chapter 1: Introduction outlines the organization of this document and identifies the location
and custodian of the record of proceedings.
Chapter 2: Project Summary provides a summary of the Project, overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's objectives.
Chapter 3: Environmental Review and Public Participation Process provides a summary of
previous environmental reviews related to the Project area that took place prior to the
environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in
the environmental review for the Project.
Chapter 4: No Environmental Effects and Less Than Significant Environmental Effects
without Mitigation Measure presents a summary of those environmental issue areas where no
impacts or less than significant impacts would occur and a corresponding finding adopting the
Initial Study and PEIR's conclusions of no impact or less than significant impacts.
Chapter 5: Less Than Significant Environmental Effects with Mitigation Incorporated
presents a summary of potentially significant environmental effects for which implementation of
identified feasible mitigation measures would avoid or substantially reduce the environmental
effects to less -than -significant levels and provides a corresponding finding for each effect. In order
to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project and adopted as conditions of the
Project by the Lead Agency.
Chapter 6: Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects presents a summary of
significant and unavoidable effects for which there are no known feasible mitigation measures
that would avoid or substantially reduce the environmental effects to less -than -significant levels
and provides a corresponding finding for each effect.
Chapter 7: Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes presents a
summary of the significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project
be implemented.
Chapter 8: Findings Regarding Growth -Inducing Impacts presents a summary of the growth -
inducing effects considered for the Project.
Chapter 9: Findings Regarding Project Alternatives presents a summary of the alternatives
considered for the proposed Project.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
iWA
1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 10: Statement of Overriding Considerations presents a summary of all of the
significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed
Project. In addition, this chapter identifies the proposed Project's substantial benefits that
outweigh and override the proposed Project's significant unavoidable impacts, such that the
impacts are considered acceptable.
1.3 LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
City's Project approval is based are located at the City's Planning Division office at 20 Civic Center
Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City's Planning Division is the custodian of the
administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of
proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the
offices of the Planning Division Counter. The record of proceedings is provided in compliance with
PRC Section 21081.6(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
1-3
CHAPTER 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project would provide for redevelopment of the
approximately 17.2-acre site located on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and Bear
Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site comprises seven parcels (Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 412-451-01 through -04 and 412-131-10, -20, -21 ((Project Site)). The Project
Site is currently occupied by the South Coast Plaza Village commercial center on both sides of
South Plaza Drive which consists of approximately 164,049 square feet of retail shops and
restaurants, offices, and the Regency Theatres cinema building. The City's GPU Land Use
Element designates the project site as District Center -High (DC-5) within the South Bristol Street
Focus Area (SBSFA). Development in the DC-5 designation is intended to provide urban retail,
residential, mixed -use, and employment centers. The Project Site is currently zoned as Specific
Development Plan No. 48 (SD-48) which was adopted in 1989 and was last amended in 1997.
The Project would redevelop the site with mixed -use commercial and residential, residential only,
and commercial only buildings. A central commercial area would include a variety of commercial
uses, such as restaurants, a market, and retail uses, with additional commercial uses extending
through the ground floor of adjacent residential buildings. Stand-alone residential and mixed -use
buildings would provide housing opportunities for residents in the City's SBSFA. In total, The
Project would include up to 1,583 residential units (encompassing approximately 1,850,000
square feet of building space), 80,000 square feet of retail space, 300,000 square feet of office
space, and approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and common areas. The
Specific Plan includes a maximum height of 25 stories with a minimum of 1 story for
commercial/office only buildings and no minimum height for residential or mixed -use buildings.
Parking would be provided in tower and podium buildings and underground building levels with
up to four levels below grade.
At full buildout, the Project is anticipated to provide a combined 13.8 acres of public and private
outdoor and recreation space including approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space
and common areas and 6.3 acres of private outdoor and amenity spaces. Public open spaces at
the Project would consist of active spaces, outdoor seating, garden paseos, a fitness loop, and a
recreational lawn. Private open space amenities include outdoor balconies and patios, pools and
spas, outdoor kitchens, and communal gathering spaces. The proposed Project would also
include roadway and streetscape modifications and improvements along Sunflower Avenue, Bear
Street, and South Plaza Drive in addition to new access points throughout the project site and a
bicycle network which includes a new Class IV cycle track along Sunflower Avenue, and a new
Class I bike path along Bear Street.
Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to begin January 2026 and could take up to
20 years to complete. Construction of the proposed Project would be implemented in a series of
five phases to reflect anticipated market conditions and to ensure that access, public facilities,
and infrastructure connections are appropriately installed to serve the Project. Demolition of the
entire Project Site would occur during the first phase of the construction period. Subsequently,
the construction period for each phase would generally include excavation, grading, trenching,
pile driving, installation of utilities, building construction, architectural coating, paving activities,
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2-1
2 PROJECT SUMMARY
and installation of landscaping and hardscape elements for the respective phase. The maximum
excavation would reach approximately 52 feet below grade where up to four levels of
subterranean parking are proposed. Approximately 420,000 cubic yards of total material would
be excavated and likely hauled away from the project site.
2.2 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
The following approvals and/or permits would be required to implement the proposed Project. The
environmental documentation for the proposed Project would be used to facilitate compliance with
federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as well as granting permits by various federal, state,
and local agencies having jurisdiction over one or more aspects of the Project.
City of Santa Ana
• The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan adoption by ordinance by City Council
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certification in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by resolution by City Council
• Development Agreement: A development agreement between the Applicant and the
City describing development rights and public benefits for the development pursuant
Government Code Section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement will be
reviewed concurrently with the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan and requires adoption
by ordinance by City Council.
• Tentative Tract Map to create legal conveyable lots for project development, formalize
the parcel boundaries, and provide for public rights -of -way for project access. The
Tentative Tract Map will be reviewed concurrently with the Village Santa Ana Specific
Plan and requires adoption by resolution by City Council.
• Demolition, grading, and building permits
City of Costa Mesa
Issuance of encroachment permits
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General
Permit (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ)
Orange County MS4 Permit (Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as
amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062)
• General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters Resulting
from De Minimis Discharges or Groundwater Dewatering Operations, and/or
Groundwater Cleanup/Remediation Operations at Sites within the Newport Bay
Watershed Permit (Order No. R8-2019-0061, NPDES No. CAG918002)
Federal Aviation Administration
• Form 7460-1, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2-2
2 PROJECT SUMMARY
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
• Land use review
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
• Issuance of approvals associated with bus stop improvements and relocations
South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Issuance of any permits to construct or permits to operate
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR])
requires that the description of the project shall contain a statement of objectives sought by the
proposed project. The project objectives have been developed to incorporate the GPU objectives
and vision, including the GPU SBSFA objectives. The following are the proposed Project
objectives:
Implements the vision and objectives established in the City of Santa Ana General Plan
for the South Bristol Street Focus Area as the City's southern gateway and part of the
South Coast Metro area by creating opportunities to transform auto -oriented shopping
plazas to walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix
of high -intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial uses. The
following are based on the South Bristol Street Focus Area objectives:
o Capitalizes on the success of the South Coast Metro area;
o Introduces mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses
that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit oriented; and,
o Provides for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established low
density neighborhoods.
• Fosters a neighborly environment where residents can live, work, and recreate in a vibrant
village community.
• Anchors Santa Ana's South Bristol Street Focus Area as envisioned by the City, which is
to transform conventional auto -oriented shopping plazas into dynamic nodes of activity
that blend healthy living, working, shopping, and dining in a contemporary village
environment.
• Captures Orange County's indoor -outdoor lifestyle through attention to detail in the design
of buildings, selection of materials, infusion of nature in outdoor spaces, and the activities
offered in the Village.
• Builds on the foundation of this dynamic area through new experiences in food, fitness,
and artisan retail.
• Complements the successful South Coast Metro area with a diversity of new housing in a
jobs -rich environment.
• Attracts the innovative and start-up culture of Orange County and provides thoughtfully
designed spaces to create and showcase new offerings.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2-3
2 PROJECT SUMMARY
• Complements and does not compete with the emerging business environment of
Downtown Santa Ana.
• Allows for the flexible redevelopment of the underutilized project site to provide a balanced
mix of residential, retail, recreation, and office uses in the South Bristol Street Focus Area
that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and attractive
environment for living and working, as encouraged by the GPU.
• Develops high quality residential spaces that reflect modern lifestyles, while responding
to the vision of the GPU to help bring higher density housing into a jobs -rich area of the
City planned for growth, to facilitate balancing the City's jobs -housing ratio.
• Provides a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the
creation of new jobs, development of more commercial opportunities, attraction of
economic activity, and the expansion of the tax base.
• Enhances alternative transportation activity by creating a walkable and bikeable mixed -
use development that links with existing facilities and transit services to encourage non -
automotive travel within the Specific Plan area and the local community.
• Improves existing infrastructure to support the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan consistent
with the General Plan conditions.
• Provides a project that contributes to the creation of a vibrant urban core for the City by
providing vibrant and attractive community amenities, recreational and open space areas,
and gathering spaces that are directly accessible to residents and the community, and
takes advantage of the site's location within the South Coast Metro area.
• Provides on -site open space and community -serving recreational amenities recognizing
that this area of the City is currently identified as park -deficient by the GPU.
• Provides community benefits commensurate with the Specific Plan development proposal
including public open space onsite and locations for public community events, as well as
streetscape improvements along the project site frontages of Sunflower Avenue and Bear
Street.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2-4
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana conducted an
extensive environmental review of the Project, which included a Draft Supplemental EIR and a
Final Supplemental EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment
period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this project:
The City of Santa Ana concluded that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared, and the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from
November 3, 2023 through December 4, 2023 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15082.
The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on November 3, 2023. The
notice was published in the Orange County Register, available at the City of Santa Ana,
Planning Division Counter, located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701,
and the City of Santa Ana Public Library, located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA
92701. Under CEQA, a Lead Agency may proceed directly with preparation of the EIR
without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that an EIR will be required (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15060[d]).
• The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received response letters from
the State, regional and local public agencies, and interested parties. These comment
letters were included in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments of the
Draft Supplemental EIR.
A duly -noticed scoping meeting for the Supplemental EIR was held on November 15,
2023, at 6:00 p.m. at the McFadden Institute of Technology located at 2701 South Raitt
Street in the City of Santa Ana to obtain information from the public as to issues that should
be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. The notice of a public scoping meeting was
included in the NOP distributed on November 3, 2023 and was published in the Orange
County Register and was sent to agencies, interested parties, and individuals who
requested to be notified of the Project.
The Draft Supplemental EIR was distributed by the City of Santa Ana, which was made
available for a 52-day public review period (April 17, 2025 through June 9, 2025). The
Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Supplemental EIR was sent to all persons,
agencies and organizations on the interest list interested persons, published on April 17,
2025, at the Orange County Register, and posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office and
the State Clearinghouse (SCH) at the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation (LCI) on April 17, 2025. Copies of the Draft Supplemental EIR were made
available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, located at
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the Southwest Senior Center,
located at 2201 West McFadden Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92704. The Draft Supplemental
EIR was also available for review and download via the following City website location and
CEQAnet web portal: https://www.santa-ana.org/the-village-santa-ana-specific-plan/ and
https://ceganet.opr.ca.gov/. Additionally, the NOA was published in the Orange County
Register.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City received a total of eight comment letters on the Draft Supplemental EIR from
public agencies and organizations regarding the merits of the Project or questions
regarding the Project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The
comments and responses are contained in Section 2, Responses to Comments, of the
Final Supplemental EIR. Additionally, the Final Supplemental EIR contains revisions to
the Draft Supplemental EIR and final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that
commented on the Draft Supplemental EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the
Supplemental EIR.
• Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of
the Final Supplemental EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project
files; and b) copy of the Final Supplemental EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be
provided to the Project applicant who is responsible for providing a copy of the same to all
CEQA "responsible" agencies.
Hearings before the City Council were held following a recommendation from the Planning
Commission.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3-2
CHAPTER 4
NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS -THAN -
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT
MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the Supplemental EIR, the Project would have no or less -than -significant environmental
effects for the specific areas associated with the topics identified below.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Threshold AE-1: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics
related to scenic vistas. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5 — 5-6.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would include a mix of commercial and residential
development that would be at a greater intensity and density in both height and area, as compared
to existing conditions. However, the Project is not located within or near a scenic vista, as defined
by the City's GP Conservation Element. The Santa Ana River is located approximately 2.5 miles
to the west of the Project site; Santiago Creek is located approximately 4.6 miles north of the
Project site. The Project activities would be limited to the boundaries of the project site. Therefore,
the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less
than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5 — 5-6.)
Threshold AE-2: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to aesthetics related to scenic
resources within a state scenic highway. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-6.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The GPU PEIR states that no state scenic highways, eligible or
officially designated, traverse the City nor are located near the City. Though buildout consistent
with the GPU would lead to infill development and intensify the urban landscape, it would not
damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state
scenic highways. There are no eligible or state designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the
Project site. Therefore, the Project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, and there would be no impact. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-6.)
Threshold AE-3: The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics
and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-6 — 5-7.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-1
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of DC-
5, which is intended to provide urban retail, residential, mixed -use, and employment centers with
an intensity of up to 5.0 floor area ratio and/or 125 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum height
of 25 stories. The Project would be consistent with this land use designation and development
standards, as it would include mixed -use commercial and residential buildings ranging up to 25
stories with an intensity of up to 5.0 floor area ratio and 125 dwelling units per acre. The Project
site is currently zoned as SD-48; however, the project's specific plan would replace SD-48 as the
zoning for The Village and would contain the development standards, permitted uses, and
administrative processes for future development at the Project site.
As the Project would be designed with a cohesive style that is compatible with its surrounding
development, the Project would support the existing visual character of the Project area.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 5-6 — 5-7.)
Threshold AE-4: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics
related to light and glare. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-7 — 5-8.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would intensify development at the Project site both
horizontally and vertically, with a mix of residential, commercial, office, parking, and open space
uses. Thus, the Project would result in additional sources of light, such as building lighting,
landscape lighting, lighting along pedestrian pathways, security lighting, and parking lot lighting.
In addition, the Project would result in additional sources of glare due to light reflecting off parked
or traveling cars and building windows. However, the Project would utilize lighting that is typical
of the existing and surrounding developments. In addition, similar to development under the GPU,
the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 Standards as amended by the Santa
Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article II and the City's Lighting Standards (Section 5 of the City's
Engineering Standards and Plans). In addition, the specific plan specifies implementation of the
exterior and landscape lighting design requirements. Therefore, because the Project would
comply with applicable regulations and implement lighting design criteria, the Project would not
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-7 — 5-8.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning aesthetics.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
to aesthetics. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5 — 5-8.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is a mixed -use project located on an infill site. The
Project would include development that would be at a greater intensity and density in both height
and area, as well as additional sources of light, as compared to existing conditions. However, the
Project is not located within or near a scenic vista, would not substantially damage scenic
resources, and would be consistent with land use designation and development standards.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-2
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5 — 5-8.)
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold AF-1: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry
resources related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-8.)
Explanation of the Rationale: According to the California Department of Conservation's
California Important Farmland Finder mapping tool, the Project site and surrounding uses are
designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land." Therefore, no farmland exists on the Project site and
the Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-8.)
Threshold AF-2: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry
resources related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-8.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is zoned for Specific Development (SD-48), which
does not allow for agricultural use. Additionally, according to the California Department of
Conservation's California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder mapping tool, Orange County does
not have any land subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, p. 5-8.)
Threshold AF-3: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry
resources related to conflict with existing zoning for, or rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The City does not have any land designated or zoned for
forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project site is zoned for
Specific Development (SD-48), which does not allow for forestland or timberland uses. Therefore,
the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forestland or timberland uses. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Threshold AF-4: The Project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-3
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry
resources related to the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The GPU PEIR states that the City does not have any land
designated or zoned for forestland. The Project site is currently developed with existing
commercial retail and surface parking lot uses and does not contain any forest land. Therefore,
the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non -forest use. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Threshold AF-5: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -
forest use.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry
resources related to other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion
of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The City does not have any significant agricultural resources or
land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
The Project site and vicinity are designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land," and no farmland exists
on the Project site or surrounding uses. Therefore, the Project would not convert farmland or
forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest use. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-9.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning agriculture
and forestry resources.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no cumulative impacts concerning
agriculture and forestry resources. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-8 — 5-9.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The City does not have any significant agricultural resources or
land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Additionally, Orange County does not have any land subject to the Williamson Act Contract. The
Project site and vicinity are designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land," and no agriculture or
forestry resources exists on the Project site or surrounding uses. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-
8-5-9.)
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Threshold AQ-4: The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to
odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality
related to other emissions, such as odors. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.1-47 — 4.1-48.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-4
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.1-9):
RR AQ-2: Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449, which requires that nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
RR AQ-3: Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable
South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations, including but not
limited to:
• Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance.
• Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not "discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety
of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property."
• Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural
coatings.
• Rule 1466, Soil Disturbance. Projects that involve earth -moving activities of more
than 50 cubic yards of soil with applicable toxic air contaminants are subject to
this rule.
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction activities associated with the Project may generate
detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However,
construction -related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon completion of
construction activities. According to the Odor Complaints, Health Impacts, and Monitoring
Methods prepared for the California Air Resources Board, odors typically come from industrial
facilities, including wastewater treatment plants, municipal solid waste landfills, trash transfer
stations, composting facilities, animal agriculture, chemical and petroleum industries, and roadkill
collection facilities. The Project would not include any of these uses or odor sources. Because
the Project would include restaurants, there is the potential for uses within the immediate area to
experience odors associated with restaurant operations. However, the Project comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to
a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person.
Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 would ensure potential restaurant -related odors during
Project operation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people,
and impacts related to odors during Project operation would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.1-47 — 4.1-48.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-5
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold 8-1: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological
resources related to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-9 — 5-10.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is fully developed with existing commercial uses
and surface parking, and the surrounding area is heavily urbanized with residential and
commercial uses. The Project would involve infill development within an already highly disturbed
urban environment. The Project site includes limited, ornamental landscaping, including grass
lawns and trees. Due to the urbanized nature of the project site and surrounding area, there are
no natural, vegetated areas that could support candidate, sensitive, or special status species, or
habitat for such species. However, the existing trees on -site may provide habitat to nesting birds,
which are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the
California Fish and Game Code. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations including the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which
protect nesting birds and their eggs/young. To maintain compliance with the MBTA and California
Fish and Game Code, clearance surveys would be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or
vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting
birds if construction occurs during the nesting bird season. Therefore, the Project would not result
in direct impacts to special -status species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status
species and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-9 — 5-10.)
Threshold 8-2: The Project would not 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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to biological resources related
to a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-10 — 5-11.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is fully developed with commercial retail uses and
contains limited, ornamental landscaping. The ground cover consists primarily of paved,
developed areas and limited areas of vegetation, including trees and grass. There is no riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities within the Project site. Therefore, implementation
of the Project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-10 — 5-11.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-6
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Threshold B-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to biological resources related
to state or federally protected wetlands. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Based on a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands within the Project site. Furthermore, no potential
jurisdictional drainages or wetland features were observed within Project site. The National
Wetlands Inventory identifies several wetland features in the Project vicinity. However, these
wetland habitats are engineered and man-made, and the Project would not impact these nearby
wetland features. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.)
Threshold B-4: The Project would not 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.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological
resources related to interfering with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-11 — 5.12.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles east of the
Santa Ana River, and 5.2 miles south of Santiago Creek. As such, the Project would not result in
impacts to either of these corridors. In addition, the Project site is not located within any wildlife
corridors, as it is fully developed and surrounded by urban land uses that provide minimal to no
opportunities for movement of wildlife. The Project would remove ornamental trees at the Project
site, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the MBTA. To maintain
compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, clearance surveys
would be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid
direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds if construction occurs during the
nesting bird season. With compliance to the requirements of the MBTA, any direct or indirect
impacts on nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 5-11 — 5.12.)
Threshold B-5: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological
resources related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-12.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-7
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would remove a number of existing trees within the
rights -of -way. The Project would adhere to the following sections of the Municipal Code, which
contains codes that pertain to trees within parkways and rights -of -way: Section 33-191 Damaging
City Trees, Section 33-185 Street Tree Species to be Planted, and Section 33-188 Site Plan
Approval, as well as Article VII, Regulation for the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable tree policies. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 5-12.)
Threshold 8-6: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to biological resources related
to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 5-12.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The City of Santa Ana is not located within a Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
applicable Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans, and no impact
would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-12.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning biological
resources.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
to biological resources. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-9 — 5-12.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is fully developed with existing commercial uses
and surface parking, and the surrounding area is heavily urbanized with residential and
commercial uses. The Project would involve infill development within an already highly disturbed
urban environment. The Project would result in no impacts related to sensitive natural
communities; federally protected wetlands; and conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan; and less -than -significant impacts related to candidate, sensitive,
or special status species; migratory fish or wildlife species or wildlife corridors; and conflict with
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related
to biological resources would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-9 — 5-12.)
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold C-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-13 — 4.2-14.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-8
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: A records search conducted for the Project indicated a total of
three cultural resources are documented within the half -mile search radius of the Project site.
However, none of these resources are located within or adjacent to the Project area, and no built
environment resources within the project area were identified in the Built Environment Resource
Directory. Additionally, the existing South Coast Village was evaluated for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, and is recommended ineligible for listing in the California Register. Therefore, the
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
and no impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-13 — 4.2-14.)
Threshold C-3: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to cultural
resources related to human remains. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-16 — 4.2-17.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.2-5):
RR CUL-1: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human
remains are discovered within the proposed project site, disturbance of the site shall halt
and remain halted until the coroner has investigated the circumstances, manner, and
cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition
of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to
his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not
subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the
human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone
within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
Explanation of the Rationale: Sensitivity for buried human remains would be low at the Project
site, as the Project site does not contain cemeteries or known burial grounds, and past
construction activities have disturbed the entire property. However, as the Project would require
excavations that are anticipated to disturb a large part of the Project site at varying depths up to
a maximum depth of 52 feet for the subsurface parking garage, there is potential to encounter
previously unknown human remains. In the event that human remains are discovered, the
remains would be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
(RR CUL-1), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains would
be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-16 — 4.2-17.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-9
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.6 ENERGY
Threshold E-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to energy related to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-11 — 4.2-18.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.3-4):
RR E-1: Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with California Code of
Regulations Section 2485, which requires that nonessential idling of construction
equipment be restricted to five minutes or less.
RR E-2: At least 65 percent of all nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from
nonresidential construction associated with future development in the plan area shall be
recycled and/or salvaged for reuse in line with the 2016 California Green Building
Standards Code Section 5.408 (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
RR E-3: New buildings implemented as part of the General Plan Update are required to
achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
RR E-4: Any appliances associated with development in the Plan Area shall meet the
requirements of the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations.
RR E-5: Development under the General Plan Update shall support the goals of the
renewables portfolio standard, SB 350, and SB 100 to achieve a tiered increase in the use
of renewable energy to 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
RR E-7: Development under the General Plan Update shall be in compliance with state
and local solid waste regulations including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1327, AB 1826, and
Section 5.408 of 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project's annual average fuel consumption from gasoline
construction vehicle use during Phase 4 (phase with most gasoline consumption) would account
for 0.299 percent of the City's forecasted consumption of gasoline fuel and 0.029 percent of the
County's annual gasoline consumption. Additionally, the Project's annual average fuel
consumption from diesel construction equipment use during Phase 1 (phase with most diesel
consumption) would account for 0.166 percent of the City's forecasted consumption of diesel fuel
and 0.225 percent of the County's annual diesel consumption. As such, construction would have
a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. Additionally, the Project would comply
with regulatory requirements, such as the 2022 CalGreen Code, USEPA Construction Equipment
Fuel Efficiency Standard, and California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-10
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary than other similar development projects.
The Project's operational automotive transportation at full buildout is estimated to result in a net
increase that would account for 0.493 percent of the City and 0.053 percent of the County's
forecasted annual consumption of fuel for the buildout year of 2045. As such, the Project would
account for a nominal percentage of the forecasted annual operational automotive fuel
consumption for both the City and County and, thus, would have a nominal effect on the local and
regional energy supplies. The Project's operational energy consumption at full buildout would
result in a net increase of approximately 0.602 percent in electricity consumption and
approximately 0.309 percent in natural gas consumption of the City's consumption in for the
buildout year of 2045. The Project would also be required to comply with the most current and
applicable version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code.
Overall, the Project would account for a nominal energy consumption percentage of the City and
County's annual energy consumption. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant
increase in construction and operational energy consumption. As such, impacts resulting from the
Project would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-11 — 4.2-18.)
Threshold E-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or enerqv efficiency.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to energy
related to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-19 — 4.3-23.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would comply with the State and regional plans for
renewable energy and energy efficiency. State and regional plans for renewable energy and
energy efficiency include the California Energy Commission's Integrated Energy Policy Report
and Title 24 standards, including the CALGreen Code. The Project would meet the most current
and latest Title 24 standards for energy efficiency and incorporate all applicable energy efficiency
measures (solar panels, high efficiency lighting, energy efficient appliances, etc.). Compliance
with Title 24 standards, including the CALGreen Code, would ensure the Project's consistency
with the Integrated Energy Policy Report building energy efficiency recommendations, which
would, in turn, ensure project conformance with the State's energy reduction goals. The Project
would also comply with applicable energy goals and policies in the GPU. As such, impacts
resulting from the Project related to consistency with adopted energy conservation plans or
state/local energy standards for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-19 — 4.3-23.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning energy.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
related to energy. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-24 — 4.3-26.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project's electricity demand would not significantly increase
Southern California Edison's total electricity demand for its service population, and the Project's
natural gas demand would be nominal compared to SoCalGas' total natural gas demand for its
service population. The Project transportation fuel usage would represent a small percentage of
total fuel consumption within Orange County. In addition, the Project would not cause any new or
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-11
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
additional significant cumulative impacts related to consistency with adopted energy conservation
plans or state/local energy standards for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore,
cumulative impacts related to energy were determined to be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.3-24 — 4.3-26.)
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold G-1(i): The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture
of a known earthquake fault.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to geology
and soils related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-9.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.4-3 — 4.4-4):
RR G-1: Every public agency enforcing building regulations must adopt the provisions of
the California Building Code (CBC), which is Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of
Regulations. The most recent version is the 2019 CBC (effective January 1, 2020).1 The
CBC is updated every three years and provides minimum standards to protect property
and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations,
building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of
seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC also contains provisions for
earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock
on -site, and the strength of ground shaking with specified probability of occurring at a site.
RR G-2: Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Buildings and Structures. These codes
address grading standards, excavation, and fills. This also includes compliance with
regulations for unreinforced masonry structures in accordance with "Unreinforced
Masonry Law," found in California Government Code §§ 8875 et seq. The City of Santa
Ana Building Official may place additional requirements upon the construction of
infrastructure, buildings, and other improvements based on the findings from plan check,
soils testing, and geotechnical investigations.
Explanation of the Rationale: There are no known active faults located within or adjacent to the
Project site. The Project site is also not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard
Zone. Therefore, the potential for primary ground rupture of a known earthquake fault is
considered very low at the Project site. Moreover, earthquake fault zones are existing
environmental conditions and the Project would not exacerbate the risk of earthquake faults.
Impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-9.)
Threshold G-1(iv): The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving landslides.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to geology
and soils related to landslides. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-13).
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-12
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: The project site is not located within a zone of earthquake induced
landslide. Additionally, similar to the overall City topography, the project site is relatively flat; thus,
there would be no hazards related to slope stability. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-13.)
Threshold G-2: The Proiect would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to geology
and soils related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.4-13 — 4.4-14).
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would result in ground surface
disturbance during excavation and grading that could create the potential for erosion of soils to
occur. During construction, transport of sediments by stormwater runoff and wind would be
prevented through BMPs, such as implementation of Rule 403 dust control measures required by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
for construction activities. In addition, the proposed addition of open space and expanded
landscaping would result in less impervious area compared to existing conditions, reducing the
potential for runoff and soil erosion. Therefore, with implementation of a project -specific Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan, associated BMPs during construction, and installation of
landscaping and open space to stabilize soils throughout the Project site, the Project would not
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.4-13 — 4.4-14.)
Threshold G-5: The Project would not 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.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to geology and soils related to
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 4.4-18.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-4):
RR G-3: Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 39-51 requires that all buildings or structures
within the city that require plumbing fixtures must be connected to a public sewer.
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. Sanitary wastewater at the project site is handled through connections to the
existing sanitary sewer system. No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-18.)
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold GHG-1: The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to
greenhouse gases emissions. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-18 — 4.5-23.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-13
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.5-7):
RR GHG-1: New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards
(CALGreen) Code (Title 24, Part 11). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
became effective January 1, 2020. The Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen are updated tri-annually.
RR GHG-2: Construction activities are required to adhere to California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449, which restricts the nonessential idling of construction
equipment to five minutes or less.
RR GHG-3: New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building
Standards Code and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements to increase
water efficiency and reduce urban per capita water demand.
RR GHG-7: The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requires the
recycling and/or salvaging for reuse at minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste generated during most "new construction" projects
(CALGreen Code §§ 4.408 and 5.408). Construction contractors are required to submit a
construction waste management plan that identifies the construction and demolition waste
materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvaged for
future use or sale and the amount (by weight or volume).
Explanation of the Rationale: The net increase in emissions from the Project compared to
existing conditions is 1.40 MTCO2e per year. Compared to the GPU horizon year emissions per
service population of 3.5 MTCO2e per year, the Project would result in a less severe impact. The
Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, City of Santa Ana
General Plan, and the City's Climate Action Plan. As the Project is consistent with these GHG
reduction plans, the Project would also be consistent with the State's long-term goal to achieve
statewide carbon neutrality (zero -net emissions). Specifically, the Project would be consistent with
several GPU goals and policies that may reduce GHG emissions, including goals and policies
from the Conservation Element related to air quality and climate, energy resources, and water
resources, and those from the Mobility Element related to sustainable transportation design.
Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-18 — 4.5-23.)
Threshold GHG-2: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to
greenhouse gases emissions related to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation.
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR GHG-1
through RR GHG-3 and RR GHG-7 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-23 — 4.5-34.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project's characteristics render it consistent with Statewide,
regional, and local climate change mandates, plans, policies, and recommendations. More
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-14
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
specifically, the GHG plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the Project
would comply with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies
outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City's GPU and Climate Action
Plan. Consistency with these plans would reduce the impact of the Project's incremental
contribution to GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, regulation, or recommendation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-23 — 4.5-34.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning greenhouse
aas emissions.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR GHG-1 through RR GHG-3 and RR GHG-7 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-34 — 4.5-35.)
Explanation of the Rationale: State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) states that
compliance with GHG related plans can support a determination that a project's cumulative effect
is not cumulatively considerable. The Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan,
the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City of Santa Ana General Plan, and the City's Climate Action Plan.
As the Project is consistent with these GHG reduction plans, the Project would also be consistent
with the State's long-term goal to achieve carbon neutrality (zero -net emissions). Impacts related
to the generation of GHGs and consistency with an applicable GHG plan would be less than
significant. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to GHGs would not
be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.5-34 — 4.5-35.)
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold H-1: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hazards
and hazardous materials related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-17 — 4.6-19.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.6-9):
RR HAZ-1: Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be transported to and/or from
projects developed under the General Plan Update in compliance with any applicable state
and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act); California Department of Transportation standards; and the California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration standards.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-15
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
RR HAZ-2: Hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal
will be conducted in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management
of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other
hazardous substances. The projects developed under the General Plan Update will be
designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Health
Care Agency, Environmental Health Division, which serves as the designated Certified
Unified Program Agency.
RR HAZ-4: Demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers
and/or the public to asbestos -containing materials or lead -based paint will be conducted
in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403
• California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.)
• California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529)
• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (California
Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [Lead])
• Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part 763
[asbestos], and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead])
RR HAZ-5: The removal of hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), mercury -containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed in accordance with
applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury -containing
light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the hazardous waste operations
and emergency response (HAZWOPER) training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8
CCR 5192.
RR HAZ-6: New construction, excavations, and/or new utility lines within 10 feet or
crossing existing high-pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, or electrical
lines greater than 60,000 volts will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541).
Explanation of the Rationale: The existing buildings on the project site were constructed
between 1971 and 1973 and it is likely that the building materials contain asbestos -containing
materials (ACMs), lead -based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls. Surveys, testing, and
abatement would be required prior to demolition of the existing buildings, in addition to proper
removal and disposal, and would be conducted in accordance with the existing SCAQMD Rule
1403, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and California Health and Safety
Code. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, project construction activities
would not expose people to a substantial risk resulting from the release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
During operation, the Project would include use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials
typically associated with residential and commercial uses, including restaurants and retail stores.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-16
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
However, as with Project construction, all hazardous materials used on the Project site during
operation would be used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturer's standards
and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Therefore, with compliance with
manufacturer's standards and all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating
to environmental protection and the management of hazardous materials, impacts associated
with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the Project
would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-17 — 4.6-19.)
Threshold H-2: The Project would not 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.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hazards
and hazardous materials related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Additionally, the City finds that
the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR
HAZ-6 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-19 — 4.6-20.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the
Project revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and/or Controlled
Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) in connection with the Project site. In the event
that hazardous materials are found on -site during construction activities, materials would be
removed in accordance with procedural requirements and regulations for the proper removal and
disposal. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, Project construction
activities would not expose people to a substantial risk resulting from the reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-19 — 4.6-20.)
Threshold H-3: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile
of an existina or proposed school.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the
City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR HAZ-2; RR HAZ-
4 through RR HAZ-6 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-20 — 4.6-21.)
Explanation of the Rationale: There are no schools within one -quarter mile of the Project site.
The closest school to the Project site is California Pacific Charter Schools, located approximately
0.3 mile to the southwest. No impacts would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-20 — 4.6.21.)
Threshold H-4: The Project would not 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials related to hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-17
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR
HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR HAZ-6 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.6-21 — 4.6-22.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is not included on any hazardous waste site lists
included in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's EnviroStor database, which includes
CORTESE sites and the Environmental Protection Agency's database of regulated facilities, or
other lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impacts would
occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-21 — 4.6-22.)
Threshold H-5: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials related to airports. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-22 — 4.6-23.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR
HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR HAZ-7 (listed above) and the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.6-9):
RR HAZ-7: Development will be designed and constructed in accordance with the airport
environs land use plan for John Wayne Airport. Building height restrictions, as specified in
the airport environs land use plan, would apply in the city.
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of
Santa Ana Airport (SNA) and outside any SNA Safety Compatibility Zones (including the Runway
Protection Zones) and the 60 dbA CNEL noise contours. Therefore, the Project would not result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Further,
the Project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Notification Area for SNA,
which includes the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Notification Area. The Project is required
to be submitted to the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission for aeronautical review. Upon completion of the review process, the project would
not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.
No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-22 — 4.6-23.)
Threshold H-6: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hazards
and hazardous materials related to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR HAZ-1, RR HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR HAZ-7 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-23 — 4.6-24.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would introduce new residential units, retail, and office
uses to a site that currently only includes retail uses. During construction of the Project, while it is
expected that the majority of construction activities would be confined to the Project site, limited
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-18
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
off site construction activities may occur in adjacent street rights -of -way intermittently, which could
potentially require partial, temporary lane closures. However, if temporary lane closures are
necessary, the remaining travel lanes would remain open in accordance with standard traffic
control plans that would be submitted to and reviewed by the City's Public Works Agency
Development Engineering staff, which would ensure adequate circulation and emergency access.
Upon completion of construction activities, all travel lanes would be restored to pre-
existing conditions.
Operation of the Project would generate traffic in the Project site vicinity and would result in some
modifications to the Project site's access. However, public and private roadways throughout the
Project site would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles for fire, ambulance, and
police services. The roadways would not have restricted access such as gates that would prevent
emergency vehicles from reaching the intended destinations. Roadway improvements and new
roadway construction would be constructed in accordance with the Orange County Fire Authority
standards and code requirements. Therefore, the Project would not physically interfere with or
impair the implementation of the City's emergency response plan. Impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-23 — 4.6-24.)
Threshold H-7: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials related to wildland fires. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR HAZ-7 (listed above).
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-24.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located in an urban, developed area within the
City and is surrounded by commercial and multi -family residential uses. No wildlands occur within
or near the Project site. No impacts related to risk of wildland fires would occur. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 4. 6-24.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning hazards and
hazardous materials.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will
implement regulatory requirements RR HAZ-1, RR HAZ-2; RR HAZ-4 through RR HAZ-7 (listed
above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.6-25 — 4.6-26.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As with the Project, related projects would require evaluation for
potential threats to public safety, including those associated with the use, storage, and/or disposal
of hazardous materials and would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal
laws, rules and regulations. Because environmental safety issues are largely site -specific, this
evaluation would occur on a case -by -case for each individual project affected, in conjunction with
development proposals on these properties. The Project would result in less than significant
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-19
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.6-25 — 4.6-26.)
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Threshold HYD-1: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements violations.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-11 — 4.7-14.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-5 — 4.7-6):
RR HYD-1: All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) for
stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Compliance requires filing a
Notice of Intent, a Risk Assessment, a Site Map, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
and associated best management practices, an annual fee, and a signed certification
statement.
RR HYD-4: All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the
requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062). The MS4 Permit requires new
development and redevelopment projects to:
• Control contaminants into storm drain systems
• Educate the public about stormwater impacts
• Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
• Control runoff from construction sites
• Implement best management practices and site -specific runoff controls and
treatments for new development and redevelopment
RR HYD-5: All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the
requirements detailed in Chapter 18 Article IV of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction activities associated with the Project have the
potential to result in the conveyance of soils and other pollutants due to soil erosion during grading
and soil stockpiling and subsequent siltation into municipal storm drains. However, construction
activities would comply with requirements of the Construction General Permit (as required by RR
HYD-1), including a project specific SWPPP and associated best management practices (BMPs).
Construction dewatering discharges would comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana
RWQCB's Groundwater Discharge Permit, which requires sampling and treatment measures as
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-20
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
necessary to ensure groundwater discharges would not contain high levels of pollutants.
Therefore, with compliance to the Construction General Permit and Groundwater Discharge
Permit, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater during construction, and construction -
related impacts would be less than significant.
The Project's storm drain network would be designed to match existing drainage and flow patterns
to best utilize the capacities available in the existing public storm drain system. The Project would
follow the requirements of the local MS4 Permit, as required by RR HYD-4, and the Orange
County Technical Guidance Document and incorporate post -construction BMPs and low impact
development (LID) measures in its project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). The
Project's WQMP must be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the local
MS4 Permit and Orange County DAMP regulations. Therefore, with incorporation of typical post -
construction BMPs and LID measures and adherence to applicable permits, the Project would not
violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater during operation, and operational impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-11 — 4.7-14.)
Threshold HYD-2: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to groundwater. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-14 — 4.7-15.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would require dewatering activities
due to the Project's excavation for the proposed subterranean parking. However, dewatering
activities would be temporary and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.
Additionally, the Project would add a projected 339 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water demand in
the current year, which is approximately 1 percent of overall City water demand. The City would
have sufficient supply to meet the current and projected demand of the Project during normal,
single -dry, and multiple -dry years. In single -dry and multiple -dry years, thus, the Project would
not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Further, because the Project site is already
developed with paved surfaces, development of the Project would not interfere with groundwater
recharge. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-14 — 4.7-15.)
Threshold HYD-3(i): The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to substantial erosion or siltation. Additionally, the City finds that the
Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed
above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-16 — 4.7-17.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-21
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would require demolition of the existing
building structures, including foundations, floor slabs, and utilities systems and excavation for
subterranean parking structures which could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site and could result in flooding on- or offsite. However, drainage would be controlled because
the Project would comply with the Construction General Permit and Groundwater Discharge
Permit. With adherence to the applicable permits and implementation of a project -specific SWPPP
and associated BMPs, construction of the project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site.
The Project's grading and storm drain network would be designed to match existing drainage and
flow patterns and would integrate bio-filtration methods, pervious surfaces, and selective plant
materials to encourage on -site water retention. The Project would incorporate BMPs and LID
measures following the local MS4 Permit requirements (RR HYD-4) and Orange County
Technical Guidance Document; comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code (RR HYD-5) and the
Construction General Permit (RR HYD-1); and prepare a WQMP to reduce impacts related to
erosion or siltation. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-16 — 4.7-17.)
Threshold HYD-3(ii): The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in floodina on- or off -site.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to flooding from surface runoff. Additionally, the City finds that the Project
will implement regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above).
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-17 — 4.7-18.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As previously discussed, the Project would adhere to the
applicable permits and implementation of a project -specific SWPPP and associated BMPs.
Therefore, construction of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site.
Due to the high podium building drainage demand and the presence of multiple subterranean
garage entrances, on -site drainage systems would be sized to contain the 100-year storm
hydraulic grade line below the proposed finished surface to address the existing ponding issues.
The Project's grading and storm drain network design would ensure surface runoff, including
ponding water at the public driveways, would not result in flooding on- and off -site. Impacts would
be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-17 — 4.7-18.)
Threshold HYD-3(iii): The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would 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.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-22
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to stormwater drainage. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will
implement regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-19 - 4.7-20.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As previously discussed, the Project would adhere to applicable
permits (e.g., Construction General Permit and Santa Ana RWQCB's Groundwater Discharge
Permit, if necessary) and implement a project -specific SWPPP and associated BMPs; therefore,
construction of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial runoff water or polluted runoff.
The Project grading and storm drain network would be designed to match the existing drainage
and flow patterns to best utilize the capacities available in the existing public storm drain system
and may use underground detention systems and/or on -site drainage systems to contain excess
flows. The Project site would be required to implement bio-filtration as the primary water quality
treatment method. During each phase of Project development, the associated localized drainage
and water quality systems dedicated to each building site would be confirmed during the design
permitting phase with the City and constructed with each building before connecting to the on -site
backbone storm drain system. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water,
including ponding water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be
less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-19 - 4.7-20.)
Threshold HYD-3(iv): The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would impede or redirect flood flows.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to flood flows. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-20 - 4.7-21.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As discussed previously, with adherence to the applicable permits
(e.g., Construction General Permit and Santa Ana RWQCB's Groundwater Discharge Permit, if
necessary), implementation of a project -specific SWPPP and associated BMPs, construction of
the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. Additionally, the Project site is not located
within a Special Flood Hazard Area, defined as the area that will be inundated by the base flood
or 100-year flood. Therefore, the potential for Project facilities to impede or redirect flood flows is
considered low. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.7-20 - 4.7-21.)
Threshold HYD-4: The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Additionally, the City finds
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-23
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5
(listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-21 — 4.7-22.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area
and the risk of flood hazard is low. Tsunamis affect low-lying areas along the coastline. As the
Project site is located approximately 6 miles from the coastline, the risk of tsunami hazard is low.
The Project site is within the inundation area of the Santiago Creek and the Prado Dam. However,
as stated in the GPU PEIR, the USACE and DSOD have ongoing assessments and measures to
certify dam efficiencies, and Santiago Creek and Prado Dam are required to maintain EAPs,
which would help minimize property damage and loss of life in emergency conditions. Therefore,
the risk of project inundation is low. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.7-21 — 4.7-22.)
Threshold HYD-5: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality related to conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.7-22 — 4.7-23.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would adhere to the requirements of the Construction
General Permit, Orange County MS4 Permit, and the City's Municipal Code as required by RR
HYD-1, HYD-4, and HYD-5, to reduce impacts to surface and groundwater quality. Water supply
for the Project would be provided by connections to the existing City utility infrastructure and not
by groundwater wells. The project's projected water demand would be sufficiently accommodated
by the City's water supply. Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-22 — 4.7-23.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning hydrology
and water quality.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning hydrology and water quality. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR HYD-1; RR HYD-4; and RR HYD-5 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-23 — 4.7-25.)
Explanation of the Rationale:
Similar to the Project, construction activities associated with GPU buildout and the related projects
have the potential to convey soils and other pollutants into municipal storm drains. During
operation of these projects, stormwater runoff from project sites could introduce or increase
pollutants that could runoff into municipal storm drains. However, as with the Project, projects
developed pursuant to the GPU and the related projects within the watersheds would be required
to implement water quality control measures pursuant to the NPDES General Construction
Permit, such as implementation of a SWPPP (for projects disturbing greater than one acre), a
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-24
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
WQMP (for development and redevelopment projects), and BMPs to eliminate or reduce the
discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges, reduce runoff, reduce erosion and
sedimentation, and increase filtration and infiltration. The NPDES permit requirements have been
set by the SWRCB and implemented by the RWQCB and the Orange County DAMP to reduce
incremental effects of individual projects so that they would not result in significant
cumulative impacts.
Additionally, the projected water demand from the GPU at buildout, which includes the Project, is
well within the projected total water demand for 2040 in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
for normal, dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. Additionally, as the other related projects in
the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa are within the OC Basin, it is assumed that the projected total
water demand for 2040 in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for normal, dry year, and
multiple dry year scenarios would be sufficient for the related projects. Further, mandatory
compliance with each city's Municipal Code would ensure that buildout of the GPU, the related
projects, and the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to
flood hazards.
Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality
would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.7-23 — 4.7-25.)
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold LU-1: The Proiect would not physically divide an established communitv.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to land use
and planning related to physically dividing an established community. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.8-20 — 4.8-21.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.8-8 — 4.8-9):
RR LU-1: Development associated with the General Plan Update would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Development within specific plan areas, overlay areas,
and specific development districts would implement zoning and development standards
that are applicable within these subareas in addition to those in the underlying zoning
district.
RR HAZ-7: Development will be designed and constructed in accordance with the airport
environs land use plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Building height restrictions, as
specified in the AELUP, would apply in the city
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project implements land uses and activities that were
envisioned and analyzed in the GPU PEIR. The Project site is currently developed with 164,049
square feet of commercial uses, which comprises approximately 22 percent of the 17.2-acre site.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-25
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
The remaining project site is comprised of surface parking. The Project site currently does not
have any residential uses and no existing established community exists within the Project site.
The Project site is surrounded by commercial and multi -family residential uses, and the Project,
which proposes a mixed -use community that would include mixed -use commercial and
residential, residential only, and commercial only buildings, would connect the surrounding
properties through the proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular network. Additionally, the
Project would not introduce any new roadways that would bisect existing communities or
neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community,.
Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.8-20 — 4.8-21.)
Threshold LU-2: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to land use
and planning related to conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation. Additionally, the City
finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR LU-1 and RR HAZ-7 (listed
above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.8-21 — 4.8-52.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is consistent with applicable regional and local plans
and programs that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect including SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John
Wayne Airport (SNA), the City's General Plan, and applicable zoning. Impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.8-21 — 4.8-52.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning land use
and planning.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning land use and planning. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR LU-1 and RR HAZ-7 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.8-52 — 4.8-53.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As with the Project, the GPU buildout and each related project
would be required to comply with their applicable land use plan and be subject to review by City
regulatory agencies and CEQA review. The Project would not physically divide an established
community or conflict with applicable land use plans and zoning standards. Therefore, the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to land use and planning would not be cumulatively
considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.8-52 — 4.8-53.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-26
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold M-1: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the reaion and the residents of the state.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources related
to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-12 — 5-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is entirely located in an area designated as MRZ-
3, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available
data. The Project site is currently developed with existing commercial retail and surface parking
lot uses. No mineral extraction occurs within or near the Project site, and no mineral extraction
would occur with implementation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not 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 would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. pp. 5-12 — 5-13.)
Threshold M-2: The Project would not 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.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources related
to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, p. 5-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is not delineated as a locally important mineral
resource recovery site in the GPU or other land use plan. The Project would be located within a
fully developed urban site with no mineral resource sectors or active or inactive mines. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-13.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning mineral
resources.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning mineral resources. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-12 — 5-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is entirely located in an area designated as MRZ-
3 and is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the GPU or other
land use plan. The Project site is currently developed with existing commercial retail and surface
parking lot uses. No mineral extraction occurs within or near the Project site, and no mineral
extraction would occur with implementation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not 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 or of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would
occur. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to mineral resources
would not be cumulatively considerable. No impacts would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 5-12 — 5-13.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-27
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.13 NOISE
Threshold N-2: The Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or aroundborne noise levels.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to noise
related to generation of excessive groundborne vibration. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.9-32 — 4.9-35.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Project construction can generate varying degrees of
groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment
used. The ground -borne vibration generated during construction activities would primarily impact
existing sensitive uses that are located adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of individual
projects. The Project may potentially use pile drivers during construction and the nearest
residences are multi -family residences approximately 75 feet from the Project site, resulting in
vibration levels ranging from approximately 0.0006 inch/second PPV to approximately 0.1239
inch/second PPV at 75 feet. As a result, construction groundborne vibration would not be capable
of exceeding the 0.2 inch -per -second PPV significance threshold for human annoyance or
building damage at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less
than significant impact during construction.
Implementation of the Project would not involve land uses that include or require equipment,
facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration. Heavy duty trucks
would occasionally travel through the surrounding roadways; however, it is unusual for vibration
from sources, such as buses and trucks, to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.
As such, it can be reasonably inferred that operation of the Project would not create perceptible
vibration impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, vibration impacts related to human
annoyance and building damage during operation would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.9-32 — 4.9-35.)
Threshold N-3: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area
located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport to excessive
noise levels.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to noise
related to exposing people residing or working in the project area located within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport to excessive noise levels. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.9-35 — 4.9-36.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport (SNA) located
approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is located within the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (SNA) and the Federal Aviation Regulations Part
77 Notification Area, but outside of the General Aviation Runway Safety Zones. Future sensitive
uses proposed under the Project would be located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of
SNA. Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or related
facilities. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.9-36.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-28
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold P-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to population
and housing related to substantial unplanned population growth. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.10-10 — 4.10-12.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would draw from the large regional workforce to build
out the phases during construction. As the nature of typical construction efforts in urbanized,
developed areas such as the Project is temporary and involves commuting to construction sites,
the construction workers are not expected to relocate to the Project site area and result in
substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Construction impacts would be less
than significant.
The Project would introduce housing and a residential population to a site where none currently
exist and would provide housing for approximately 3,659 individuals, at a 95.9 percent occupancy
rate. With respect to the Orange County Council of Governments projections, the Project would
be approximately 1.02 percent of the population and approximately 1.9 percent of the housing in
Santa Ana and would not exceed the growth identified in the GPU PEIR. The Project would benefit
the City by introducing multi -family housing in a jobs -rich area in which employees would be able
to easily commute to nearby employment opportunities. In addition, as the area is jobs -rich and
as the Project would slightly reduce (improve) the jobs to housing ratio, the addition of residential
units in the area would not require additional direct or indirect job growth. Furthermore, jobs
associated with the Project's retail and office uses would be filled to some extent by employees
already residing in the vicinity of the Project. Thus, the employment growth from the Project would
not exceed the growth identified in the GPU PEIR.
The Project would be consistent with the land use designations proposed in the GPU PEIR, which
allow for urban retail, residential, mixed -use, and employment centers with an intensity of up to
5.0 floor area ratio (FAR) and/or 125 dwelling units per acre; thus, no new substantial unplanned
population growth would occur that was not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Therefore,
impacts related to unplanned population growth as a result of the Project would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.10-10 — 4.10-12.)
Threshold P-2: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to population and housing
related to displacement of existing people or housing. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.10-12 — 4.10-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is currently developed with existing commercial
retail uses and surface parking lot uses. No housing or residents are currently located within the
Project site. The Project would redevelop the approximately 17.2-acre site within the South Bristol
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-29
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Street Focus Area with a mix of residential and commercial uses that would provide approximately
1,583 residential units. Consistent with the GPU, implementation of the Project would provide
additional housing opportunities. Therefore, no people or housing would be displaced, and no
impacts would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.10-12 — 4.10-13.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning population
and housing.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning population and housing. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.10-13 — 4.10-17.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Cumulative development located in the City of Santa Ana propose
various uses, including, but not limited to, apartments, single-family residences, offices,
commercial/retail uses, restaurants, hotels, warehouses, industrial uses, and gas station and car
wash uses. The Project with the related projects would account for 16.7 percent of the projected
housing growth (5.2 percent of the GPU buildout), 14.6 percent of the projected population growth
(3.3 percent of the GPU buildout), and 12.9 percent of the projected employment growth (0.9
percent of the GPU buildout) for the City. With respect to the OCCOG 2045 projections, the project
in combination with related projects would contribute to approximately 7.2 percent of the housing
and 3.9 percent of the population in Santa Ana. As previously described, the addition of housing
within the Project area would help to balance the jobs -housing ratio within the City, providing a
more equal distribution of employment and housing for the City and thereby reducing commute
trips and improving air quality. On a citywide scale, the GPU buildout and related projects within
the City of Santa Ana are within the CPU's vision and forecasted development buildout of
accommodating growth in a responsible manner by providing a balance of jobs and housing.
Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with population and
housing would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.10-12 — 4.10-17.)
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold FP-1: The Project would not result in unplanned population growth or substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios and response times or other performance objectives for fire
protection services.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to public
services related to fire protection services. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-14 — 4.11-15.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.11-3):
RR FP-1: New buildings are required to meet the fire regulations outlined in the California
Health and Safety Code (Sections 13000 et seq.).
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-30
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction and operation of the Project would increase demand
for fire protection and emergency medical services over existing conditions. However, the Project
would be consistent with the land use designations proposed in the GPU PEIR; thus, no new
substantial unplanned growth would occur that was not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR.
Additionally, while the calls for service from the additional population and employment at the
Project site could result in an increase in response times from nearby fire stations, Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA) fire protection equipment and staffing may be augmented by the City, as
needed, and the Project would include payment of applicable fees to the City's general fund
towards fire protection facilities. Additionally, the Project would comply with OCFA's Fire
Prevention Guideline B-09 related to access driveways, access walkways to and around
buildings, water supply, and siting of hydrants consistent with the California Fire Code and
California Building Standards Code. Therefore, the Project's impacts on fire protection services
would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-14 — 4.11-15.)
Threshold PP-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times
or other performance objectives for police protection services.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to public
services related to police protection services. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-15 — 4.11-17.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would be consistent with the land use designations
proposed in the GPU PEIR; thus, no new substantial unplanned growth would occur that was not
previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Nonetheless, this anticipated growth generated by the
Project would increase service calls but is expected to create the typical range of police service
calls, which may relate to crime and safety issues during project construction (e.g., theft of building
materials and construction equipment and vandalism) and during project operation (e.g., vehicle
burglaries, thefts, commercial shoplifting, and disturbances). The Santa Ana Police Department
would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design measures are incorporated into the Project's design. Additionally, the
Project would generate revenues for the City's general fund (in the form of property taxes, sales
tax, etc.) that could be used for the provision of new police facilities in the City. Therefore, the
Project's impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.11-15 — 4.11-17.)
Threshold SS-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other
performance objectives for school services.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to public
services related to school services. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-17 — 4.11-18.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.11-6):
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-31
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
RR SS-1: New residential and commercial development shall pay development fee
authorized by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be "full and complete
school facilities mitigation."
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would have the potential to generate approximately
307 new elementary school students, 176 new intermediate school students, and 226 new high
school students, for a total of 709 new students. All three Santa Ana Unified School District
schools serving the project site have enrollment capacity to serve the Project at buildout. In
addition, the Project would be required to pay developer/impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50,
which would further reduce potential impacts to school services. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65995, payment of development fees would provide full and complete
mitigation of school impacts. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-17 — 4.11-18.)
Threshold LS-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other
performance objectives for library services.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to public
services related to library services. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-18 — 4.11-20.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.11-6):
RR LS-1: New residential development shall pay a property excise tax per the City
Municipal Code Section 35-114, Residential Development Tax.
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would be consistent with the land use designations
proposed in the GPU PEIR; thus, no new substantial unplanned growth would occur that was not
previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Nonetheless, the anticipated growth generated by the
Project would increase the demand for library services in the City. However, through compliance
with the policies regarding the payment of residential development tax and property taxes, which
would contribute to the City's general fund that could potentially be used for the expansion of the
existing libraries or construction of new library facilities, the Project's impacts on library services
would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-18 — 4.11-20.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning
public services.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
concerning public services. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-20 — 4.11-23.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-32
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale:
Fire Protection
Buildout of the GPU and the related projects would be reviewed by the City and/or OCFA prior to
permit approval to ensure that all new development implement fire protection design features
pursuant to the CFC and CBSC to reduce potential fire hazards. In addition, each related project
proposing buildings over two stories in height would be required to pay a fire facilities fee. The
Project would be consistent with the land use designations evaluated in the GPU PEIR; thus, no
new substantial unplanned growth would occur that was not previously analyzed in the GPU
PEIR. Further, Project implementation would improve the fire safety of the project site compared
to existing conditions and adhere to OCFA's Fire Prevention Guideline B-09. The Project would
also contribute the appropriate payment of the fire facilities fee, residential development tax, and
property taxes, which would contribute to the City's general fund that could potentially be used for
the expansion of existing fire stations or construction new fire protection facilities. Therefore, the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with fire protection and emergency
services would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-20 — 4.11-21.)
Police Protection
Buildout of the GPU and related projects within the City of Santa Ana would have the potential to
generate additional demand for police protection services by the Santa Ana Police Department.
However, as part of the development project review process, the Santa Ana Police Department
would review and approve the final site plans for GPU buildout and each related project within the
City. In addition, GPU buildout and each related project within the City would generate revenues
to the City's general fund (in the form of property taxes, sales tax, etc.) that could be applied
toward the provision of new police facilities and related staffing in the City. The Project would not
result in substantial unplanned population growth that was not previously analyzed in the GPU
PEIR. Design of the Project would be reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Police
Department, and the Project would generate revenues for the City's general fund that could be
used for the provision of new police facilities in the City. Therefore, the Project's contribution to
cumulative impacts associated with police protection services would not be cumulatively
considerable, and therefore, cumulative impacts to police protection services would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.11-21.)
School Services
Buildout of the GPU and related projects within the boundaries of Santa Ana Unified School
District and Orange Unified School District have the potential to result in the need for additional
school resources. However, cumulative development would be subject to all applicable laws,
ordinances, and regulations in place for school services, such as payment to fund new schools
from the fee program pursuant to Senate Bill 50. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with
the land use designations proposed in the GPU PEIR; thus, no new substantial unplanned growth
would occur that was not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Additionally, the Project would
be required to pay developer/impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50. As such, the Project's
contribution to cumulative impacts associated with school services would not be cumulatively
considerable, and therefore, cumulative impacts to school services would be less than significant.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-21—4.11-22.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-33
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Library Services
Buildout of the GPU and the related projects within the City would potentially increase the need
for library services. However, only the projects that involve the development of residential uses
would generate additional demand for library services. Cumulative development within the City
with a residential component would be required to comply with RR LS-1 for the payment of the
residential development tax and property taxes, which would contribute to the City's general fund
that could potentially be used for the expansion of the existing libraries or construction new library
facilities. Additionally, the Project would not result in new substantial unplanned growth that was
not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Project implementation would also result in the
payment of the residential development tax and property taxes, which could potentially be used
for the expansion of the existing libraries or construction new library facilities. Therefore, the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with library services would not be
cumulatively considerable, and therefore, cumulative impacts to library services would be less
than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.11-22 — 4.11-23.)
4.16 TRANSPORTATION
Threshold T-1: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to
transportation related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 4.13-11.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.13-4):
RR T-1: The City will design and operate a balanced, multimodal circulation system
network with all users in mind —including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and
riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities in line with the California Complete Streets
Act (Assembly Bill 1358).
RR T-2: Projects pursuant to the General Plan Update will implement fire protection
requirements as detailed in the Orange County Fire Authority's Fire Prevention Guidelines
and in the California Fire Code.
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would enhance the existing circulation network by
including improvements to existing roadways, providing a new internal network of private
roadways and loading zones to encourage the safe movement of people and goods, and providing
adequate parking for residents and visitors to the Project site. Additionally, the Project would
maintain the existing public transit stops located within, directly adjacent to, or in the vicinity of
the Project site and would continue to serve the ridership in the area which would include the
residents, employees, and visitors of the Project. The Project would also enhance the existing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Project vicinity to allow residents, visitors, and other
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-34
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
users to travel throughout The Village. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system for roadways, transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.13-11 — 4.13-14.)
Threshold T-2: The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to
transportation related to conflict or inconsistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR T-1 through
RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-14 — 4.13-18.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), and the
proposed land uses are consistent with the RTP/SCS. Additionally, the Project would not result in
an increase in the VMT per service population (VMT/SP) from what was analyzed in the GPU
PEIR. The Traffic Impact Study Guidelines identifies areas in the City that cannot be screened
out because they are not located in a TPA and would, therefore, require a VMT analysis; however,
the Project is not located within such an area and is therefore screened out of VMT analysis.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b). Impacts related to VMT as a result of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-14 — 4.13-18.)
Threshold T-3: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to
transportation related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR T-1 through RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.13-18 — 4.13-19.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would change circulation and mobility throughout the
Project site by providing sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and a bicycle network. Additionally, the
Project would include improvements to existing roadways, including Sunflower Avenue, Plaza
Drive, and Bear Street. All roadway improvements and new roadway construction would be
constructed in accordance with the Orange County Fire Authority standards and requirements,
the Santa Ana Citywide Design Guidelines, and design guidelines of the California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Additionally, during construction, a traffic control plan would be
implemented to ensure that appropriate construction traffic control measures are utilized for
adequate and safe access and circulation within and near the Project site for all modes of
transportation, including emergency vehicles. Consistent with the GPU PEIR, circulation network
improvements are subject to review by the City's Public Works engineering staff, which would
ensure that roadway and circulation network improvements meet geometric design standards
and, thus, would not substantially increase hazards. Lastly, the Project is consistent with the land
use designation of the site and, thus, would not introduce any incompatible uses that would result
in transportation hazards. Therefore, impacts related to substantially increased hazards due to a
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-35
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.13-18 — 4.13-19.)
Threshold T-4: The Proiect would not result in inadeauate emeraencv access.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to
transportation related to inadequate emergency access. Additionally, the City finds that the
Project will implement regulatory requirements RR T-1 through RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 4.13-20.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The proposed public and private roadways throughout the Project
site would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles for fire, ambulance, and police
services. The roadways would not have restricted access such as gates that would prevent
emergency vehicles from reaching the intended destinations. Roadway improvements and new
roadway construction would be constructed in accordance with the Orange County Fire Authority
standards and requirements. During construction, a traffic control plan would be implemented to
ensure that adequate and safe access is available within and near the Project site. Appropriate
construction traffic control measures would be utilized to ensure that emergency access to the
Project site and the safe circulation of all modes of transportation is maintained on adjacent rights -
of -way. Therefore, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than
significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.13-20.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts
concerning transportation.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant cumulative impacts
concerning transportation. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR T-1 through RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.13-21 — 4.13-3.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Cumulative development under the GPU buildout and related
projects, including surrounding jurisdictions for the Cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine, would be
separately reviewed and approved by the respective jurisdiction to ensure their consistency with
applicable programs, plans, ordinances, and policies; VMT impacts; and compliance with existing
building and fire code standards associated with emergency access hazards. The Project would
connect to the existing circulation system while providing new facilities to enhance the use of
public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle mobility and would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing circulation; would be consistent with SCAG's Connect SoCal RTP/SCS and
provide for public transit options to future project users to further reduce VMT; and would be
designed in conformance with the City and Orange County Fire Authority's design standards to
ensure that no potentially hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access would be
introduced. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with
transportation would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-21 — 4.13-23.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-36
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold U-1: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities
and service systems related to new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.15-22 — 4.15-27.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-8 — 4.15-14):
Water
RR U-5: Any development implemented under the General Plan Update shall abide by the
water conservation and efficiency requirements detailed in Chapter 8, Article XVI, Chapter
39, Article VI and Chapter 41, Article XVI of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
RR U-6: Water connection fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 39, Article II of
the City's Municipal Code and plumbing shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 8,
Article III.
RR U-7 (Water): Water Supply Assessments and written verifications shall be prepared
for any development implemented under the General Plan Update that meets the criteria
of Senate Bill 610 or Senate Bill 221.
Wastewater
RR U-1: Any sewer utility infrastructure improvement associated with development under
the General Plan Update shall be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
Chapter 8, Article III, and Chapter 39, Article III, and of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
RR U-2: Any new connections to the Orange County Sanitation District system or
expansion of a previous connection shall pay a capital facilities charge in accordance with
Ordinance No. OCSD-40.
RR U-3: Sewer utility infrastructure improvements associated with development under the
General Plan Update shall be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the
Orange County Sanitation District's Ordinance Nos. 25 and 48 and the wastewater
discharge requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
(Order No. R8-2012-0035).
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-37
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Stormwater
RR U-8 (Stormwater): Storm drain shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 8, Article
III, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
RR HYD-1: All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for
stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Compliance requires filing a
Notice of Intent (NOI), a Risk Assessment, a Site Map, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and associated best management practices (BMPs), an annual fee, and a
signed certification statement.
RR HYD-4: All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the
requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062). The MS4 Permit requires new
development and redevelopment projects to:
• Control contaminants into storm drain systems
• Educate the public about stormwater impacts
• Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
• Control runoff from construction sites
• Implement best management practices and site -specific runoff controls and
treatments for new development and redevelopment.
Dry Utilities
RR U-10: New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy
and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11).
RR U-11: All new appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency
Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations, Sections 1601 through 1608).
Explanation of the Rationale:
Water
The Project would involve the installation of water mains, hydrants, fire sprinklers, and proposed
recycled water and irrigation laterals and meters based on City and County input during the design
permitting phase. The water infrastructure improvements would comply with the City of Santa Ana
Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities and City of Santa Ana's Construction
Standards. Construction impacts associated with the installation of new water mains, fire
hydrants, and water connections would be temporary and would primarily involve trenching in
order to place the water lines below ground within previously disturbed roadways. Moreover,
water infrastructure improvement projects were considered in the GPU PEIR and supported by
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-38
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
GPU policies. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water facilities would be less than significant. As such, impacts resulting from the
Project would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.15-23.)
Wastewater
The Project would result in an increase in wastewater generation due to the Project site's change
in land use from commercial to mixed -use (i.e., residential uses and higher density would result
in greater wastewater generation. The Project's generated flow of 0.200 cubic feet per second
(cfs) would match the existing flow and no additional wastewater capacity would be required. As
part of Project development requirements, the Sewer Capacity Study, was submitted to the
Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) to verify capacity of the County sewer mains. OC
San review identified that there is existing capacity within the Sunflower trunk main; however, the
smaller Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) sewer mains in Bear Street and Plaza Drive have no additional
capacity beyond current discharges. Thus, the Project would include the construction of an on -
site private sewer network that would convey a majority of sewer flows generated west of Plaza
Drive within a private sewer network to connect to the City's VCP sewer main. All new connections
would be constructed per City and OC San standards. Final alignment, points of connections, and
limits of sewer removal and replacement would be developed during the design permitting phase.
All proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements and connections would comply with the City
of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities, City of Santa Ana's Construction
Standards and City and OC San standards, which provide design criteria and construction
methods. Construction impacts associated with the installation of new sewer connections and
facilities would be temporary and would primarily involve trenching in order to place the lines
below ground. Further, the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would be located
in areas within the Project site and in previously disturbed roadways, and thus, the impacts from
installation and upgrades of the proposed on -site private sewer network are already accounted
for in the various resource sections of this Supplemental EIR. Therefore, with the Project's
impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities would
be less than significant. As such, impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-23 — 4.15-25.)
Stormwater
The Project's grading and storm drain network would be designed to match the existing drainage
and flow patterns to best utilize the capacities available in the existing public storm drain system.
The Project would integrate bio-filtration methods, pervious surfaces, and selective plant materials
to encourage on -site water retention. Final routing of the storm drain system may require the
construction of underground detention systems to handle a minimum of the 10-year design storm,
per the latest version of the Orange County Local Drainage Manual and would be developed with
City and County input during the design permitting phase. The proposed drain improvements
would be constructed within previously disturbed roadways. Additionally, the impacts from
installation and upgrades to the storm drain system are already accounted for in the various
resource sections of this Supplemental EIR. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to the
relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities would be less than significant.
As such, impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.15-25 — 4.15-26.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-39
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Dry Utilities
The Project would result in service lines for new buildings to be extended or relocated from the
existing infrastructure. While the Project would increase energy demand at the site compared to
existing conditions, it would be required to comply with the latest applicable Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements which provide efficiency standards related to
various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment,
building insulation and roofing, and lighting reducing energy usage. The Project would also install
solar panels on at least 30 percent of the roof area of buildings to generate electricity onsite,
offsetting demand from Southern California Edison's electrical distribution system. As such,
energy consumption for the project would be below California Energy Commission's forecasts,
the City's forecasted consumption for the proposed buildout of the General Plan in 2045, and the
current Countywide usage. Therefore, Project development would not require Southern California
Edison or Southern California Gas Company to obtain new or expanded electricity or natural gas
facilities, other than those proposed on -site. Thus, the Project's impacts related to the relocation
or construction of new or expanded electrical or natural gas facilities would be less
than significant.
Further, the existing communication services such as telephone, wi-fi, and cable television would
continue to be provided to the Project site by multiple providers. As various telecommunications
providers are available in the region, no significant expansion or construction of the
telecommunications network is anticipated. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to the
relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities would be less than
significant. As such, impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-26 — 4.15-27.)
Threshold U-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry nears.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities
and service systems related to water supply. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will
implement regulatory requirements RR U-5 through RR U-7 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.15-27 — 4.15-30.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Water demand for the Project during construction activities such
as soil compaction, dust control, and truck wheel washing, would be supplied by water trucks
and/or through connections to nearby water distribution lines. Construction activities would occur
intermittently throughout the construction period and would be temporary in nature; therefore,
construction impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
For operations, the net water demand generated by the Project site at buildout would be 339 acre-
feet per year (AFY) which is approximately 1 percent of the overall City water demand. The
Project's future water demand from 2025 through 2045 would range from 300 AFY to 286 AFY.
In addition to the City's existing and planned future uses, the projected water demand for the
Project would be met by the City's water supply during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years.
Additionally, the Project would comply with water conservation and efficiency requirements
required by the Santa Ana Municipal Code, pay water connection fees, and implement GPU
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-40
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
policies for water conservation, such as installing drought -tolerant plants, low-water turf surface,
bio-filtration planters, green roofs, drip irrigation, and localized capture and reuse. Therefore, the
Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less
than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-27 — 4.15-30.)
Threshold U-3: The Project would 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.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities
and service systems related to wastewater treatment. Additionally, the City finds that the Project
will implement regulatory requirements RR U-1 through RR U-3 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-30 — 4.15-31.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would result in an increase in wastewater flows
generated from the Project site. The OC San's Treatment Plant No. 1 serves the General Plan
area and has a treatment capacity of 182 million gallons per day (mgd) and a minimum residual
treatment capacity of 52 mgd. The Project would result in a 0.27-mgd increase in wastewater
flows to Treatment Plant No. 1. Therefore, Treatment Plant No. 1 would have sufficient capacity
to treat the 0.27 mgd of wastewater flows generated by the Project in addition to existing
commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental
EIR, pp. 4.15-30 — 4.15--1.)
Threshold U-4: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to solid
waste related to generation in excess of state or local standards, capacity of the local
infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-31 — 4.15-33.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.15-13):
RR U-7 (Solid Waste): All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply
with Section 4.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires
new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management
plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills.
RR U-8 (Solid Waste): All development pursuant to the General Plan Update shall store
and collect recyclable materials in compliance with Assembly Bill 341. Green waste will
be handled in accordance with Assembly Bill 1826.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-41
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would generate a total of
approximately 17,846 tons over the course of a 20-year period, a large percentage of which would
occur during phase one, which includes demolition of the existing uses at the Project site. All
future construction activities would be required to demonstrate compliance with Assembly Bill
(AB) 939, which requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or
composted. In addition, the project would be constructed in accordance with CALGreen, which
requires recycling a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
debris, and submittal of a construction waste management plan. Compliance with these
regulations, as well as RR U-7 requiring implementation of a construction waste management
plan, would ensure the project's construction -related solid waste impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 35,700 pounds per day, or 17.85
tons per day (tpd). The maximum permitted capacity for the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill
and the Olinda Alpha Landfill are 11,500 tpd and 8,000 tpd, respectively. Both landfills have an
average daily disposal rate of approximately 7,000 tpd, indicating that they would have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the Project's 17.85 tpd of solid waste (i.e., less than 1 percent of the
residual disposal capacity of the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill). The Project would also be
required to comply with RR U-8, which states that all development pursuant to the GPU would be
required to store and collect recyclable materials and green waste in accordance with AB 341 and
AB 1826. Additionally, the Project would implement GPU policies to incorporate recycling and
organics collection activities to align with state waste reduction goals. Therefore, the Project would
not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.15-31 — 4.15-33.)
Threshold U-5: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities
and service systems related to compliance with solid waste federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement
regulatory requirements RR U-7 through RR U-8 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 4.15-34.)
Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would be required to comply with the
requirements of AB 939, which requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled,
reduced, or composted, and CALGreen, which requires recycling a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris and submittal of a construction waste
management plan. Operation of the Project would also be required to comply with AB 939; AB
341, which requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste; and Chapter
16 Article II of the City's Municipal Code, which incorporates the waste requirements of SB 1383
for single-family, multi -family, and commercial uses. Additionally, the Project would implement
waste disposal services to allow for trash, recycling, and food waste for all residential and
commercial uses. Therefore, the Project would comply with applicable state and local regulations
related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.15-31 — 4.15-33.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-42
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning utilities and
service systems.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no cumulative impacts concerning utilities
and service systems. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR U-1 through RR U-3; RR U-5 through RR U-8; RR U-10 through RR U-11; RR
HYD-1; and RR HYD-4 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-35 — 4.15-38.)
Explanation of the Rationale:
Water
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to water supply and infrastructure
is the City's water service area, which covers 27.5 square miles and includes the City of Santa
Ana and a small neighborhood in the City of Orange, near Tustin Avenue and Fairhaven by the
northeast corner of Santa Ana. The City's 2020 UWMP forecasts the water supply and demand
for its water service through 2045 which considers the GPU buildout assumptions and accounted
for the water demand generated by the types of land uses proposed by the related projects within
the City's water service area. As such, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet the
water demand during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2045. In addition, the City
is able to purchase more water from MWD if necessary. Further, projects resulting from GPU
buildout and the related projects would be required to comply with regulatory requirements and
GPU policies that promote water conservation, prepare a Water Supply Assessment, and require
City review of each water service connection and infrastructure improvement.
The Project would have a less than significant impact on the City's water infrastructure and the
City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project during normal, single -dry, and
multiple -dry years. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to water supply or
infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable, and as such, cumulative impacts to water
supply or infrastructure would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.15-35 — 4.15-38.)
WP.0PwatPr
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to wastewater conveyance and
treatment would be the sewer service area of the City, which encompasses 27.2 square miles,
and OC San's service area, which covers a 479-square-mile area of central and northwest Orange
County and includes the cities of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. Buildout of the GPU and
related projects would increase wastewater generation, thus cumulatively increasing wastewater
generation and infrastructure capacity, potentially requiring the relocation or construction of new
or expanded wastewater facilities. However, they would be required to perform a sewer
monitoring study to determine the adequacy of the sewer system, to pay the OC San Capital
Facilities Charge for new connections to the OC San System, and adhere to local standards.
Additionally, wastewater flows would be conveyed to OC San's Treatment Plant No. 1 or
Treatment Plant No. 2 for treatment which has a combined total capacity of 632 mgd. The project's
connections and upgrades to the sewer lines would result in less -than -significant impacts. In
addition, wastewater generated by the Project would be adequately served by OC San's
Treatment Plant No. 1. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to wastewater
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-43
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
conveyance and treatment infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative
impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 4.15-36.)
Stormwater
The extent of analysis of cumulative impacts for storm drainage systems is contiguous with the
City and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) service areas. Depending on the project
type and design (e.g., new construction or significant reconstruction), buildout of the GPU and all
related projects could cumulatively increase stormwater flows, potentially requiring the relocation
or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities; however, they would adhere to the
requirements of the NPDES and applicable permits (e.g., MS4, Industrial General Permit, and
Construction General Permit), which prevent post -development stormwater flows from exceeding
pre -development flows. Further, GPU buildout and the related projects would undergo the
development and review process and require hydrology studies as needed to assess stormwater
runoff and drainage. As such, GPU buildout and the related projects would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts related to stormwater.
The Project's grading and storm drain network would be designed to match the existing drainage
and flow patterns to best utilize the capacities available in the existing public storm drain system.
The Project would integrate bio-filtration methods, pervious surfaces, and selective plant materials
to encourage on -site water retention to ensure less than significant impacts related to stormwater
drainage. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to stormwater or
infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable, and thus, cumulative impacts to stormwater
or infrastructure would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.15-36 — 4.15-37.)
Solid Waste
The extent of analysis of cumulative impacts for solid waste collection and disposal services is
contiguous with the Waste Management of Orange County service area. Solid waste generated
by GPU buildout and the related projects within the City of Santa Ana would be primarily disposed
of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in Irvine and the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea. The
Orange County solid waste landfill system would continue maintain the 15-year countywide solid
waste landfill capacity as required by AB 939. Both landfills have sufficient capacity to
accommodate solid waste generated by the related projects and the Project. Moreover, the
Project and related projects would comply with all regulatory requirements to reduce solid waste
generation, including the requirements of AB 939, CALGreen, AB 341, and AB 1826, which would
reduce the amount of solid waste generated. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative
impacts related to solid waste would not be cumulatively considerable, and as such, cumulative
impacts to solid waste would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 4.15-37 — 4.15-38.)
Dry Utilities
The extent of analysis of cumulative impacts for dry utilities (i.e., natural gas and electricity
services) is contiguous with the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California
Edison service areas. Although future developments would result in the use of renewable and
nonrenewable electricity and natural gas resources during construction and operation, which
could limit future availability, the sizes and types of uses proposed by the GPU buildout and
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-44
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
related projects would use such resources on a relatively small scale. Additionally, future
development projects, including the Project, would be expected to incorporate energy
conservation features in compliance with applicable regulations, such as the Title 24 standards,
which include the CALGreen Code. The Project would not result in the need for expanded facilities
from SoCalGas, SCE, or telecommunications providers, as the existing capacities for dry utilities
would be sufficient to meet the Project's needs. Thus, the Project's contribution to cumulative
impacts to dry utility services would not be cumulatively considerable, and as such, cumulative
impacts to dry utility services would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.15-38.)
4.18 WILDFIRE
Threshold W-1: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to wildfire related to impairing
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 5-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located within the City, which is not located in
or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone
(VHFHSZ). The nearest state responsibility area classified as VHFHSZ to the City is about four
miles east along the western edge of Loma Ridge, and the nearest VHFHSZ in a local
responsibility area is about 3.8 miles east at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan, and no impact to wildfire would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 5-13.)
Threshold W-2: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to wildfire related to
exacerbating wildfire risks and exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-13.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As previously discussed, the Project site is located within the City,
which is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a VHFHSZ.
Therefore, the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact to wildfire would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
p. 5-13.)
Threshold W-3: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-45
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to wildfire related to requiring
the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-14.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As previously discussed, the Project site is located within the City,
which is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a VHFHSZ.
Therefore, the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment, and no impact to wildfire would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-14.)
Threshold W-4: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to wildfire related to exposing
people or structures to significant risks due to runoff, post -fire slope instability or drainage
changes. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-14.)
Explanation of the Rationale: As previously discussed, the Project site is located within the City,
which is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a VHFHSZ.
Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability,
or drainage changes. No impact to wildfire would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-14.)
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning wildfire.
Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no cumulative impacts concerning
wildfire. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-13 — 5-14.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located within the City, which is not located in
or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a VHFHSZ. Therefore, no cumulative
impacts to wildfire would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-13 — 5-14.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4-46
CHAPTER 5
LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Based on the Supplemental EIR, the Project would have less -than -significant environmental
effects with mitigation incorporated for the specific areas associated with the topics identified
below.
5.1 AIR QUALITY
Threshold AQ-1: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from the Project
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.1-40):
Project -Specific MM AQ-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning
Division shall confirm that the proposed project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all
landscaping equipment used on -site shall utilize at least 50 percent electric landscaping
equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers). All residential and non-
residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate
this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third -party vendor agreements
for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
RR AQ-1 through RR AQ-3 (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.1-8 — 4.1-9):
RR AQ-1: New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became
effective January 1, 2020. The Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen
are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve net zero buildings energy for 2030.
RR AQ-2: Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449, which requires that nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
RR AQ-3: Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable
South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations, including but not
limited to:
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-1
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
• Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance.
• Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not "discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety
of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property."
• Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural
coatings.
• Rule 1466, Soil Disturbance. Projects that involve earth -moving activities of more
than 50 cubic yards of soil with applicable toxic air contaminants are subject to this
rule.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, pages 4.1-27 through 4.1-30 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The determination of 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) consistency focuses on the
long-term influence of a project on air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Project
would not result in a long-term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality
standards. Further, the Project's long-term influence on air quality in the SCAB would also be
consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern
California Association of Government's (SCAG's) goals and policies and is considered consistent
with the 2022 AQMP. As such, impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with implementation of Project -Specific MM AQ-1 and
regulatory requirements RR AQ-1 through RR AQ-3.
Threshold AQ-2: The Project would not 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 with the
implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from the Project
(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.1-39 — 4.1-40):
GPU PEIR MM AQ-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for
development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment
evaluating potential project construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa
Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology for assessing air quality
impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-2
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
to exceed the SCAQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall
require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures
shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction
management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation
measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD's Rule 403, such as:
o Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities.
o Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling
dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008
or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the
manufacturer's standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five
consecutive minutes.
• Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the project area.
• Use Super -Compliant volatile organic compound paints for coating of architectural
surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating
manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD's website.
GPU PEIR MM AQ-2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for
development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment
evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa
Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
SCAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants
are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD's adopted thresholds of
significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development
projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during
operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions
of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include,
but are not limited to the following:
• For site -specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction
documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-3
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated
trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy
storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize
renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking
spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked
for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845
(13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the
CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van
vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers,
and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent
energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star— certified or equivalent appliances
shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit
routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit
Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as
appropriate.
Refer to Project -Specific MM AQ-1, above.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, pages 4.1-31 through 4.1-41 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The evaluation provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR determined that the Project's construction -
related and operation phase -related air quality impacts would be less than significant, with the
exception of operational VOC emissions during the summer. Regarding the mitigation measures
in the GPU PEIR related to this threshold, the technical assessment and appendices prepared for
the Project satisfy GPU PEIR MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2, which require preparation of a technical
assessment evaluating a potential project's construction -related and operation phase -related air
quality impacts. The possible mitigation measures to reduce short-term and long-term emissions
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-4
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
listed under GPU PEIR MM AQ-1 and AQ-2 are either suggested for industrial uses or do not
directly reduce operational VOC emissions. Therefore, Project -Specific MM AQ-1 would be
implemented to reduce significant impacts related to VOCs during Project operations.
Threshold AQ-3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM AQ-1 (listed above)
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from the Project.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.1-39.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, pages 4.1-42 through 4.1-47 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including
to significant health risk impacts for residential sensitive receptors during project construction with
the implementation of GPU PEIR MM AQ-1. Pursuant to GPU PEIR MM AQ-1, the Project
requires use of construction equipment rated by the USEPA as having Tier 4 (model year 2008
or newer) emissions limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. The total
highest calculated carcinogenic risk would be approximately 7.36 in one million and would not
exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million with the implementation of GPU PEIR MM
AQ-1. Therefore, construction activities associated with the Project are not anticipated to result in
a significant cancer or other health risk to nearby sensitive receptors, and, as such, the health
impacts during construction of the Project would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Further, by complying with GPU PEIR MM AQ-1, the Project would reduce construction -related
DPM emissions and associated acute risk, and the highest maximum chronic and acute hazard
index associated with the mitigated emissions from Project construction at residential sensitive
receptors would be 0.136 and 0.918 and would not exceed the 1.0 chronic hazard index for
individual significance. Therefore, the Project's chronic and acute hazard index would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning air quality
with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM AQ-1 and Project
Specific MM AQ-1 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant air
quality impacts resulting from the Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.1-39 — 4.1-41.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-5
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, pages 4.1-48 through 4.1-51 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to
consistency with applicable air quality plans or regional and localized emissions with the
implementation of Project -Specific MM AQ-1, to reduce the Project's operational emissions of
VOCs and its contribution of ozone precursors to the SCAB to below the SCAQMD's threshold of
significance. Additionally, GPU PEIR MM AQ-1 would require the use of construction equipment
rated by the USEPA as having Tier 4 emissions limits for engines between 50 and 750
horsepower to reduce the carcinogenic and acute hazard risks. Therefore, cumulative impacts
related to consistency with applicable air quality plans and regional and localized emissions were
determined to be less than significant after mitigation.
5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold C-2: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 with the imDlementation of mitiaation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant cultural resource impacts resulting from the
Project (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-15 — 4.2-16):
GPU PEIR MM CUL-6: If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological
resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a
qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native
American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally
affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre -
construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil of high sensitivity. The
archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the
proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held
in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the
importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The
Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that
archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing
activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted
while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the
Secretary's Standards. and This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the
Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal
resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any
collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-6
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository,
transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, pages 4.2-14 through 4.2-16 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
Due to the Project site's past disturbances, which resulted in the disturbance of archaeological
sites buried at shallow depths, the sensitivity for cultural resources consisting of archaeological
sites is considered low at and near the surface of the Project site. However, this does not preclude
the possibility that subsurface archaeological deposits underlie the project site, especially in areas
where only minimal ground disturbance have occurred (i.e., the existing surface parking lots or
structures with shallow foundations). Additionally, the sensitivity for potential buried prehistoric
archaeological sites increases in the undisturbed soils at lower depths. The Project would require
a maximum depth of 52 feet for the proposed subsurface parking garage increasing the sensitivity
for potential buried prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, the Project would incorporate
GPU PEIR MM CUL-6, which would reduce impacts to potential archaeological resources. With
the implementation of the GPU PEIR MM CUL-6, impacts to archaeological resources would be
less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning cultural
resources with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 (listed
previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant cultural resource impacts
resulting from the Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.2-15 — 4.2-16.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, pages 4.2-17 through 4.2-19 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to
archaeological resources with implementation of GPU PEIR MM CUL-6, which would reduce the
potential to impact undiscovered resources during ground -disturbing activities during Project
construction of the proposed subsurface parking garage. Incorporation of GPU PEIR MM CUL-6
would reduce the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant
levels. Therefore, the Project's impacts to archaeological resources would not be cumulatively
considerable.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-7
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
5.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold G-1(ii): The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: strong seismic ground
shaking, with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant geological impacts resulting from the Project
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-11):
Project -Specific MM G-1: Incorporation of and Compliance with a Design -Level
Geotechnical Investigation. A final design -level geotechnical investigation that complies
with all applicable state and local code requirements shall be prepared for each project
structure by a qualified, California -licensed geotechnical engineer consistent with the
California Building Code and City of Santa Ana requirements applicable at the time of
issuance of grading or construction permits. The final design -level geotechnical
investigation shall include recommendations related to site grading and earthwork, fill
materials, compaction, foundations, dewatering, and other structural elements. The report
recommendations shall be included in construction specifications and permits, approved
by the City's Building and Safety Division, and confirmed through on -site inspections.
Project -Specific MM G-2: Implementation of Geotechnical Recommendations. Project
plans, grading specifications, and construction permitting shall incorporate site -specific
earthwork and ground improvement requirements related to seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction, settlement, collapse, subsidence, and expansive soils consistent with the
California Building Code and City of Santa Ana requirements applicable at the time of
issuance of grading or construction permits as stated in the final design -level geotechnical
investigation and approved by the City's Building and Safety Division. This shall include
recommendations related to site grading and earthwork, fill materials, compaction,
foundations, dewatering, and other structural elements.
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR G-1 through
RR G-3 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.4-3 — 4.4-4.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-12 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
One of the primary seismic hazards at the Project site is ground shaking due the Project site's
proximity to the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault and the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Consistent
with the GPU PEIR, the Project would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed current
design standards as found in the latest California Building Code (CBC) and other applicable local,
state, and federal codes to minimize impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-8
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Additionally, the City requires the Project -specific engineering design recommendations from a
design -level geotechnical investigation be incorporated into grading plans and building
specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. These recommendations have been
incorporated into Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-2. Therefore, impacts to seismic ground
shaking would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold G-1(iii): The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, with the
implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM
G-2 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant geological impacts
resulting from the Project. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR G-1 through RR G-3 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-11.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-12 through 4.4-13 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
Another primary seismic hazard at the Project site is potential ground deformation due to
liquefaction, based on California Regional Geologic Maps indicating the Project site as having
potentially liquefiable soil. Though the liquefaction analysis performed for the Project indicated
that the Project site has low to moderate liquefaction potential due to the clay layer that caps the
site and the depth to the liquefaction prone layers, Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-2 would
be implemented which requires review and approval of the final design -level geotechnical
investigation, including proper foundation design measures based on 2022 CBC standards, by
the City's Building and Safety Division as part of the construction permit approval process.
Therefore, impacts to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold G-3: The Project would not 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, with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM
G-2 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant geological and soil
impacts resulting from the Project to less -than -significant. Additionally, the City finds that the
Project will implement regulatory requirements RR G-1 through RR G-3 (listed above). (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-11.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-9
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-15 through 4.4-17 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project site is underlain by moderately compressible soils as well as soil with low to moderate
potential for seismically induced settlements. Model analysis resulted in 1 to 2 inches of total
settlement below a mat slab foundation. Implementation of Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-
2 to prepare a detailed geotechnical investigation in support of the final design plans and apply
the recommendations which include measures related to foundation specifications for heavier,
intermediate, and lighter structures, such as use of pile or pier foundations, mat/raft foundations,
stone columns, injection grouting, or deep soil mixing, to reduce impacts related to settlement and
collapse, would result in less than significant impacts related to settlement and collapse.
In addition, the Project site has relatively shallow groundwater conditions. Direct groundwater
extraction would not occur as part of the Project; however, excavations deeper than approximately
10 to 15 feet are likely to encounter groundwater seepage, and excavations deeper than 15 feet
may encounter artesian conditions. Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-2 to prepare a detailed
geotechnical investigation in support of the final design plans would include local dewatering and
inflow control for excavations deeper than approximately 15 to 20 feet for construction activities.
Therefore, impacts to subsidence would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Further, slope failure and landslides are not a major hazard in Santa Ana because the entire city
is nearly flat. Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction -induced ground failure on mildly sloping
ground. Impacts related to landslides or lateral spreading are less than significant. Refer to
Threshold G-1(iii) for the discussion on liquefaction.
Threshold G-4: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property, with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM
G-2 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant soil impacts resulting
from the Project. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory
requirements RR G-1 through RR G-3 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-11.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-17 through 4.4-18 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project site contains alluvium which consists primarily of clay and silt in the upper 15 to 20
feet, with local thin lenses of sandy alluvium. Below 20 feet, there is considerably more sand and
sandy silt layers, with local thin layers of clay. Clay -based soils are susceptible to expansion;
therefore, implementation of Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-2 would include
recommendations or measures for preventing expansive soils as part of the detailed geotechnical
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-10
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
investigation in support of the final design plans. Therefore, impacts to expansive soils would be
less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold G-6: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature, with the implementation of
mitiaation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant paleontological impacts resulting from the
Project (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-20 — 4.4-21):
GPU PER MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground
disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological
sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm
whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments
for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high
sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The
paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as
outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
GPU PER MM GEO-3: In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic
formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its
significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be
recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a
database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation
facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010).
The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The
repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to
collection of the fossils.
Project -Specific MM G-3: The project applicant shall retain a qualified professional
paleontologist to monitor or supervise full-time monitoring should excavation occur into
native Pleistocene -age soil and bedrock greater than 4 feet in depth. Ground disturbance
refers to activities that would impact subsurface geologic deposits, such as grading,
excavation, boring, etc. Activities taking place in current topsoil or within previously
disturbed fill sediments, e.g., clearing, grubbing, pavement rehabilitation, do not require
paleontological monitoring. Bedrock can occur at varying depths depending on the portion
of the project area.
If no significant fossils have been recovered after 50 percent of excavation has been
completed, full-time monitoring may be modified to weekly spot-check monitoring at the
discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist. If the qualified professional
paleontologist determines during the course of excavations that project excavations are
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-11
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
located within fill or disturbed soils, or that the sensitivity for significant paleontological
resources is otherwise low, then monitoring may be reduced or suspended at the qualified
professional paleontologist's discretion. The determination to reduce or discontinue
paleontological monitoring in the project area shall be based on the professional opinion
of the qualified professional paleontologist regarding the potential for fossils to be present
after a reasonable extent of the geology and stratigraphy has been evaluated.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-19 through 4.4-21 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
No significant fossils have been previously recovered from the project area, but several vertebrate
and invertebrate fossils have been recovered within one mile of the project area and exposures
of rock formations are anticipated to underlie the Project area. The geology of the Project area
may include Pleistocene -age deposits at unknown depths, suggesting that Project -related
ground -disturbing activities, such as for the proposed subsurface parking garage that would
require a maximum excavation depth of 52 feet, have the potential to destroy or otherwise
adversely impact significant paleontological resources below young Holocene -age soils at
unknown depths within the Project area. Therefore, the Project would implement GPU PEIR MMs
GEO-2 and GEO-3. GPU MM GEO-2 requires consultation with a geologist or paleontologist to
confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive
sediments for paleontological resources. In compliance with GPU PEIR MM GEO-2, construction
activity for the Project would be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. GPU MM GEO-3 would
require work be halted in the event of a fossil discovery. Additionally, Project -Specific MM G-3
provides procedures for paleontological monitoring. Therefore, impacts to paleontological
resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning geology and
soils, with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM GEO-2 and MM
GEO-3 and Project -Specific MM G-1 through G-3 (listed previously) shall be implemented to
reduce potentially significant geology and soils impacts resulting from the Project. Additionally,
the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR G-1 through RR G-3
(listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.4-11 and 4.4-20 — 4.4-21.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, pages 4.4-21 through 4.4-22 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
Due to the site -specific nature of geological conditions (e.g., soils, geological features, subsurface
features, seismic features), geological impacts are typically limited to individual projects and their
project sites, and do not contribute to cumulative impacts. The GPU buildout and all projects on
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-12
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
the related project lists would be subject to their own project -specific impact analysis and would
be required to incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. The Project would implement mitigation measures (i.e.,
Project -Specific MM G-1 and MM G-2) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As a
result, the Project's incremental effects would not cause the combined cumulative impacts to
become significant and thus, are not cumulatively considerable.
The GPU PER identified a significant but mitigable impact on previously unrecorded
paleontological resources, to which the related projects could incrementally contribute. Such
cumulative impacts from grading activities for projects within the City of Santa Ana would be
reduced with the implementation of GPU PER MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-3. Additionally, all
related projects (including those within Costa Mesa and Irvine) would adhere to their respective
General Plan policies and/or mitigation measures to protect paleontological resources. The
excavation required for the proposed subsurface parking garage could encounter sensitive
sediments for paleontological resources. However, the Project would implement GPU PER MMs
GEO-2 and GEO-3 and Project -Specific MM G-3, which would protect any discovered
paleontological resources. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on
paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
5.4 NOISE
Threshold N-1: The Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, with the
implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant noise impacts resulting from the Project
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.9-32):
Project -Specific MM NOI-1: Prior to the issuance of a permit to conduct nighttime
construction activities (e.g., overnight concrete pours), the Project Applicant shall obtain
a permit from the City to complete work outside the standard construction hours outlined
in Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). In addition, the Project Applicant and/or
contractor(s) shall develop a nighttime construction noise control plan that demonstrates
the construction techniques that will be implemented to ensure noise levels remain below
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) nighttime construction noise criterion of 70
dBA Leq (A -weighted decibel equivalent sound level). Examples of such construction
techniques include but are not limited to the following:
• Locate stationary equipment (e.g., generators, air compressors, etc.) away from
off -site residences/sensitive receptors.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-13
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
• Surround stationary equipment with noise barriers or utilize a temporary noise
barrier to block the line of sight from such equipment to nearby off -site
residences/sensitive receptors.
• Identify minimum separation distances between mobile equipment (e.g., concrete
mixer trucks, concrete pump trucks, etc.) and residences/sensitive receptors.
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
RR NOW through RR N0I-3 (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.9-4):
RR N0I-1: California Building Code: The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2,
Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise
Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed
45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the day -night average
sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the
noise element of the local general plan.
The State of California's noise insulation standards for non-residential uses are codified
in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code,
Part 11, CALGreen. CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation
construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior
noise sources. Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section
5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the
prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and
roof -ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of
65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that
interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1 hr).
RR N0I-2: Construction Noise Sources: Section 18-314(e) of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code prohibits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through
Saturday.
RR N0I-3: Stationary Noise Sources: Section 18.312 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code
establishes standards for stationary noise sources.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.9, Noise, pages 4.9-20 through 4.9-32 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The
following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project operational noise impacts would result in less than significant impacts. The Project's
construction noise would not have the potential to exceed the FTA's construction noise criterion
of 80 dBA Leq. Furthermore, Project construction activities would comply with the construction
hours specified in Section 18-314(e) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, which restricts
construction activities to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
The only exception would be for nighttime concrete pours, which would occur a maximum of 2
nights per phase, should continuous pours be necessary for geotechnical considerations. Noise
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-14
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
from nighttime construction activity could exceed the FTA's nighttime construction noise criterion
of 70 dBA Leq at off -site residential uses. As such, implementation of Project -Specific MM N0I-1
would reduce noise levels during nighttime concrete pours by at least 10 dBA. Project -Specific
MM N0I-1 requires a nighttime construction control plan and implementation of construction
techniques, including installation of temporary noise barriers or enclosures during Phases 2 and
3 to protect sensitive receptors to the north and west, use of mufflers on construction equipment,
and placement of construction equipment away from sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts to
construction noise during nighttime concrete pours would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning noise, with
the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that Project -Specific MM N0I-1 (listed
previously) shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant noise impacts resulting from the
Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.9-32.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.9, Noise, pages 4.9-36 through 4.2-44 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The
following presents a summary of that rationale:
Construction activities associated with the Project and cumulative growth may overlap, resulting
in increased construction noise in the Project vicinity. However, construction noise primarily
affects the areas immediately adjacent to a construction site. Due to the distance and intervening
structures, cumulative construction noise from related projects would not be perceptible. With
exception of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project, the related projects are located at distances
well removed from the Project site. The Related Bristol Specific Plan Project is located directly to
the east of the Project site of which construction of the area closest to the Project would not
overlap (Related Bristol Specific Plan Phase 1 construction start 2026) with construction of the
Project in the area directly adjacent (Project Phase 4 construction start 2036). The Related Bristol
Specific Plan Project is anticipated to be completed in 2036. With the rapid attenuation of noise
with distance, construction noise from the Project and Related Bristol Specific Plan Project would
not combine to result in significant cumulative effects. The Project would implement Project -
Specific MM N0I-1 to reduce noise levels during nighttime concrete pours by at least 10 dBA by
requiring a nighttime construction control plan and implementation of construction techniques,
including installation of temporary noise barriers or enclosures during Phases 2 and 3 to protect
sensitive receptors to the north and west, use of mufflers on construction equipment, and
placement of construction equipment away from sensitive receptors. In the unlikely event that
nighttime concrete pours for both the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project and the Project occur
on the same nights in the vicinity of each other, both projects would be required to obtain a permit
from the City, including development of a nighttime construction noise control plan, as specified
in the respective project -specific noise mitigation measures, which would reduce noise levels
below the significance criteria. Cumulative impacts related to mobile, stationary, and vibration
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-15
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on noise
would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
5.5 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold TCR-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), with the implementation of
mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented to reduce potentially significant tribal cultural resource impacts resulting
from the Project (Final Supplemental EIR, p. 3-9 — 3-11):
GPU PEIR MM CUL-6, listed previously.
Project -Specific MM TCR-1: Native American Monitor - Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation:
a. The project applicant shall retain a Native American monitor from or approved by
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained
prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject
project at any project locations (i.e., both onsite and any offsite locations that are
included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the
proposed project, such as public improvement work). "Ground -disturbing activity"
shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing,
auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the Lead
Agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity,
or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed,
locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and
any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources,
including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or
"TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-16
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant
upon written request to the Tribe.
d. Onsite tribal monitoring by the Kizh Nation and/or their representatives shall
conclude upon the earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from
a designated point of contact for the project applicant or lead agency that all
ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing
activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant or Lead
Agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to
impact Kizh tribal cultural resources.
Project -Specific MM TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource
Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial): Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation
a. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding
50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered tribal cultural resource has been
fully assessed by the Kizh monitor in consultation with a qualified archaeologist.
The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered tribal cultural resources in the form
and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for
any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or
historic purposes.
Project -Specific MM TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects:
a. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition
or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this
statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or
recognized on the project site, then Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 as well
as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for
discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
e. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent
further disturbance.
Project -Specific MM TCR-4: Native American Monitor - Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes:
a. The Project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by
the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes. The monitor
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-17
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity for
the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site
locations that are included in the project description/ definition and/or required in
connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Ground -disturbing
activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal,
potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling,
and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the (City) prior
to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any
permit necessary to commence ground disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed,
locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and
any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources
(TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical
artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native
American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will
be provided to the Project applicant upon written request to the Tribe.
d. On -site tribal monitoring by the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and/or their
representatives shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written
confirmation to the Tribe or Tribal monitoring agency from a designated point of
contact for the Project applicant that all ground -disturbing activities and phases
that may involve the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written
notification by the Tribe or Tribal monitoring agency to the Executive Director of
the Planning and Building Agency, or designee that no future, planned construction
activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the
potential to impact TCRs.
Project -Specific MM TCR-5: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource
Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) - Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen
Nation- Belardes:
a. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources (TCRs), all construction activities
in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully
assessed by the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians monitor in consultation with a
qualified archaeologist. The Tribe or Tribal monitoring agency will recover and
retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate,
in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
Project -Specific MM TCR-6: Tribal Cultural Resource Finds, Dispute Resolution, and
Final Disposition:
If a tribal cultural resource is identified, then avoidance is the preferred treatment. If
avoidance is not feasible and both Tribal monitoring entities claim cultural affiliation with
and/or ancestral ties to the discovered resources, then a Cultural Resources Monitoring
and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-18
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
consulting tribes (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneno Band
of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes) and all subsequent finds shall be
subject to this Plan. The consultation effort is intended to be a meaningful and timely
process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner
that is cognizant of all parties' cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement on
the appropriate treatment and disposition of TCRs discovered. Final disposition of any
excavated resources may include, but would not be limited to, reburying, relocating,
recording, and/or another culturally appropriate treatment such as transfer to one of the
consulting tribes for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational,
cultural and/or historic purposes. If it is determined that mutual agreement cannot be
reached within 30 days of the initial consultation meeting, the Plan shall be written such
that any excavated resources shall be reinterred on site in a location free from future
ground -disturbing construction activities after documentation is complete. Project
construction will not resume within the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less
than the surrounding 50 feet) until the Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan
is prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the City.
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirements
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.14-4):
RR TCR-1: As per Assembly Bill 52, within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or
determining that a project application is complete, the lead agency must provide formal
written notification to all tribes who have requested it.
RR CULA: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human
remains are discovered within the proposed project site, disturbance of the site shall halt
and remain halted until the coroner has investigated the circumstances, manner, and
cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition
of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to
his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not
subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the
human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone
within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 4.14-9 through 4.14-12 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR and in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR, of the Final
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project's Sacred Lands File search yielded negative results and additional research identified
no historical or archaeological resources within the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius. The City
consulted with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes. Due to the Project site's location in an area where
Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that
archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground
disturbing construction activities. As previously discussed, excavations for the Project are
anticipated to disturb a large part of the Project site to a maximum depth of approximately 52 feet
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-19
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
for the subsurface parking garage. The sensitivity for potential buried prehistoric archaeological
sites at the Project site is considered low at the surface and near surface due to past disturbances;
however, the sensitivity increases in these undisturbed soils. Therefore, implementation of GPU
PEIR MM CUL-6 would require monitoring during all ground -disturbing construction activity and
pre -construction activities within previously undisturbed soils by a qualified archaeologist and a
Native American monitor, worker training, and procedures in case of a find. In addition, Project -
Specific MM TCR- 1 through MM TCR-5 are proposed for implementation as requested by the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,
Acjachemen Nation-Belardes, to require procedures for Native American monitoring and to avoid
potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed from project construction
activities. Project -Specific MM TCR-6 is proposed for resource identification, dispute resolution,
and final disposition in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a tribal cultural resource.
Therefore, Project impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Threshold TCR-2: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe, with the implementation
of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 and Project -
Specific MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce
potentially significant tribal cultural resource impacts resulting from the Project. (Final
Supplemental EIR, p. 3-9 — 3-11.)
Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR TCR-1
through RR CUL-1 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.14-4.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 4.14-13 through 4.14-14 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR and in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR, of the Final
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
As previously discussed, the Project's Sacred Lands File search yielded negative results and
additional research identified no historical or archaeological resources within the Project site and
a 0.5-mile radius. The City's consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-20
5 LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes determined tribal cultural
resources may potentially be encountered during ground disturbing construction activities. The
potential to encounter buried prehistoric archaeological sites exists for excavation in undisturbed
soils. Therefore, GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 and Project -Specific MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6 would
be implemented to require Native American monitoring during any ground disturbing activities on
the Project site and to avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed
from Project construction activities. Therefore, project impacts to tribal cultural resources would
be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning tribal cultural
resources, with the implementation of mitigation.
Findings: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final Supplemental EIR. Specifically, the City finds that GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 and Project -
Specific MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6 (listed previously) shall be implemented to reduce
potentially significant tribal cultural resource impacts resulting from the Project. Additionally, the
City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR TCR-1 through RR CUL-1
(listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.14-4.)
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 4.14-14 through 4.14-15 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR and in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR, of the Final
Supplemental EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
As previously discussed, the Project site and vicinity are not known to contain tribal cultural
resources. However, the excavation required for the proposed subsurface parking garage could
encounter prehistoric archaeological sites containing tribal cultural resources. If tribal cultural
resources are encountered during construction, the Project has the potential to contribute to
cumulative impacts. However, the Project would implement GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 and Project -
Specific MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6, which would protect any discovered tribal cultural
resources. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources
would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5-21
CHAPTER 6
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Final EIR determined that the Project has potentially significant environmental effects that
cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and such impacts would be significant
and unavoidable. These impacts and the corresponding findings are identified below.
6.1 RECREATION
Threshold R-1: The Project would 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.
Findings: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Final Supplemental EIR. While changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
including regulatory requirement RR REC-1 below, the Project to address this significant effect
on the environment, no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
RR REC-1: Residential development associated with the General Plan Update will be
required to comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV
(Residential Development Fee). Residential development is mandated to pay fees,
dedicate land in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for the purpose of preserving
recreational facilities in the City.
However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), as described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable based on specific
overriding considerations found in Chapter 8 below.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.12, Recreation, pages 4.12-10 through 4.12-13 of the Draft Supplemental
EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project would redevelop an approximately 17.2-acre site with a mix of residential and
commercial uses and is conservatively estimated to provide housing for 3,815 individuals. To
meet the GPU policy of providing 3 acres of public park or recreational space per 1,000 residents,
the Project would need to provide a total of 11.4 acres. The Project would meet a significant
portion of this increased need through provision of 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space
and common areas, which equates to providing 2 acres of publicly accessible open space per
1,000 residents. These publicly accessible areas include active spaces, such as walkways and a
fitness loop, and passive open spaces, such as pocket parks and gathering areas for outdoor
programming. Additionally, the Project would provide 6.3 acres of private outdoor and amenity
spaces, including outdoor balconies and patios, pools and spas, communal gathering spaces,
etc., totaling a combined 13.8 acres, or approximately 80 percent of the 17.2-acre Project site, of
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
public and private outdoor and recreational space to the residents. This total 13.8 acres is
anticipated to meet the potential park and recreation needs of the Project residents; however, the
Project residents may also use park and recreational facilities that are in the vicinity of the Project
site. Such additional park visits may result in physical deterioration of recreational facilities due to
the increased foot traffic and usage of park facilities. Such wear on facilities would be expected
to contribute to the need for maintenance activities including, but are not limited to: replacement
or fixing of picnic area tables and trash receptacles; painting and equipment maintenance of
basketball, tennis, swimming, and other sports facilities; upkeep on playfield, trail, and landscaped
areas; and maintenance of restroom and parking areas.
Nonetheless, the Project would meet the City's 2022 Parks Master Plan short-range goal of
providing 1.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and comply with applicable municipal code
requirements and Regulatory Requirement (RR) REC-1 requiring residential development fees
for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities pursuant to Santa
Ana Municipal Code Section 35-108 of Chapter 35, Article 4, and Sections 35-110 and 35-111 of
Chapter 35, Article 4. The Project would contribute additional public park and recreation space to
the City's available public parkland and recreational spaces at a ratio of 2 acres per 1,000
residents, which is higher than the 1.2 ratio assessed for the GPU buildout, in the GPU PEIR.
Moreover, the Project would provide tax revenues to the City, including contributions to the
applicable community facilities district, for park maintenance that would help offset the additional
deterioration occurring from the Project residents. Taken together, the Project's proposed 13.8
acres of outdoor and recreational space (comprised of 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space
and 6.3 acres of private outdoor and amenity spaces), combined with the payment of applicable
fees and tax revenues serve to reduce potential impacts discussed in the GPU PEIR. Regardless,
since the Project would not fully meet the GPU policy of providing 3 acres of parkland and
recreation facilities per 1,000 residents, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would result
in the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities in a manner that results in
accelerated substantial physical deterioration of the facilities.
Furthermore, the City of Santa Ana is essentially fully built out and there is a lack of available
vacant land to develop substantial new parks or expand existing facilities. Therefore, as identified
in the GPU PEIR, there would be no feasible mitigation measures that would be able to reduce
this significant impact, or the project's contribution thereto, to a less -than -significant level. As
such, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, which is consistent with the findings of the
GPU PEIR.
Threshold R-2: The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
Findings: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Final Supplemental EIR. While changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
including regulatory requirement RR REC-1 (listed above), the Project to address this significant
effect on the environment, no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), as described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable based on
specific overriding considerations found in Chapter 8 below.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
I•'
6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.12, Recreation, pages 4.12-13 through 4.12-15 of the Draft Supplemental
EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
The Project would provide 7.5 acres of public park/recreation and open space, which when
considering the Project's 3,815 residents at maximum buildout, results in a ratio of 2 acres per
1,000 residents, which is higher than the 1.2 ratio (based on 516.86 acres for 431,629 residents)
assessed in the GPU PEIR for the GPU buildout. Further, the Project would be developing this
park/recreation and open space in the South Bristol Street Focus Area, an area identified by the
GPU PEIR and the 2022 Parks Master Plan that is deficient in public parkland and recreational
resources. Additionally, the Project would be required to pay applicable fees pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 35-108 of Chapter 35, Article 4, and Sections 35-110 and 35-111 of Chapter 35,
Article 4, in accordance with RR REC-1, to be used towards the future expansion or renovation
of parks and recreational facilities in the City, as well as other applicable community facilities
district fees assessed to maintain park facilities.
However, as previously discussed, the Project's provision of parkland would not fully meet the
GPU policy to provide a ratio of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. While development
of the Project would not result in significant unmitigable impacts to the environmental resources
such as air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural
resources, development and operation of future new or expanded recreational facilities may have
an adverse physical effect on the environment, including impacts relating to air quality, biological
resources, lighting, noise, and traffic. Consequently, impacts from the Project would be potentially
significant.
As discussed in the GPU PEIR, the City of Santa Ana is essentially fully built out and there is
limited available land to develop new parks or expand existing facilities, and there would be no
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce significant impacts related to the City's parkland
to resident ratio to a less -than -significant level. The Project is consistent with the buildout
envisioned in the GPU for the Project area, which was analyzed in the GPU PEIR along with
buildout of the City and found to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to related to
recreation, based on the possibility that future project -specific developments could result in
significant, adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project's provision of 7.5 acres of
public park and recreation facilities and applicable fees would lessen the impact identified in the
GPU PEIR. Therefore, while the Project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable
recreation impacts disclosed in the GPU PEIR, the Project would not result in a substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified impacts and would not result in any new
significant impacts.
Cumulative Impacts: The Project would result in cumulative impacts concerning recreation.
Findings: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Final Supplemental EIR. While changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
including regulatory requirement RR REC-1 (listed above), the Project to address this significant
effect on the environment, no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), as described in the Statement
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
6-3
6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable based on
specific overriding considerations found in Chapter 8 below.
Explanation of the Rationale: The rationale and facts supporting the above finding are fully
developed in Section 4.12, Recreation, pages 4.12-15 through 4.12-18 of the Draft Supplemental
EIR. The following presents a summary of that rationale:
Together with the contribution from the Project's maximum buildout of 3,815 persons and 7.5
acres of publicly accessible parks/recreation facilities and open space, the Project plus the related
projects would result in a total of 14,273 persons and 21.4 acres of publicly accessible
park/recreation facilities and open space, for a ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. While the
Project and the related projects would improve the GPU buildout's parkland -per -resident ratio and
would be required to provide park and recreational facilities and/or pay in -lieu fees as required by
the municipal code, due to the lack of available land to develop new parks or expand existing
facilities, the ratio would still remain below the CPU's parkland standard. For this reason, the
Project's incremental contribution relating to the deficiency of parkland within the City would be
cumulatively considerable. No feasible mitigation measures were identified in the GPU EIR to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level and there remain no feasible mitigation
measures. While the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to recreation
would improve the existing cumulative scenario and the impacts identified in the GPU PEIR,
cumulative impacts to recreation resources would remain significant and unavoidable.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
6-4
CHAPTER 7
FINDINGS REGARDING
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any
significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be
implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes
if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources;
• The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future
generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential
environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
Commitment of the Proposed Project's Site for Future Generations
The Project site is developed with existing commercial uses. Implementation of the Project would
continue the commercial uses and also provide residential uses. Secondary effects associated
with construction and operation of the Project include: emissions of air pollutants; consumption of
non-renewable energy; and increased ambient noise due to increased activities. However, the
Project implements land uses and activities that were envisioned and analyzed in the GPU PEIR,
and as analyzed in the aforementioned sections, the Project would not result in unmitigable
significant impacts beyond those identified in the GPU PEIR. As a result, the Project would not
result in a new commitment of the Project site for future generations. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 5-3 — 5-4.)
Large Commitment of Resources
Resources that would be consumed during Project construction include water, electricity, natural
gas, fossil fuels, and building materials, such as lumber, cement, steel, copper, other metals,
glass, aggregate, asphalt, and composite materials. However, the building materials would largely
be used during construction and would not be further consumed during operations. Additionally,
use of such resources would not be unusual compared with other construction projects and would
not substantially affect the availability of such resources.
During operations, the proposed commercial and residential uses would consume utility
resources, such as water, electricity, natural gas, and other petroleum -based fuels, as well as
paints, solvents, and cleaner for normal maintenance activities, similar to other residential and
commercial uses. The Project would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.
(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-4.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7-1
7 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Consumption of Resources
Construction and operation of the Project would require the use of both renewable and non-
renewable resources and construction materials. However, the Project would not involve the
wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources during construction or long-term
operation. None of the building materials anticipated for the Project would be unique, rare, in short
supply, or require creation of new resource extraction sites or new manufacturing and delivery
channels. The Project would meet the most current and latest Title 24 standards for energy
efficiency and incorporate all applicable energy efficiency measures (solar panels, high efficiency
lighting, energy efficient appliances, etc.), which help to reduce energy consumption. The Project
site is also located in a designated Transit Opportunity Corridor and would develop the site with
residential, commercial, office, and recreation opportunities that would encourage use of public
transportation. Further, implementation of the Project would also satisfy the achievement of the
Project objectives, which includes objectives that are beneficial to the growth and prosperity of
the City. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-4.)
Irreversible Environmental Damage
Construction and long-term operation of the Project would involve the limited transport, storage,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials related to typical residential and commercial uses.
However, all hazardous materials used on the Project site would be used, stored, and disposed
of in accordance with manufacturer's standards and all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements such as those set forth by the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, California Emergency Management Agency, California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, and the Orange County Environmental Health Division of the Health Care
Agency. Further, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project did not
identify recognized environmental conditions at the site that would create significant hazards to
the public and environment. Therefore, the Project would not involve uses in which irreversible
damage could result from a potential environmental accident associated with the Project. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-4 — 5-5.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7-2
CHAPTER 8
FINDINGS REGARDING
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the
Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing,
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth -inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure
expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
• Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities
that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment,
either individually or cumulatively.
In addition, State CEQA Guidelines states that that growth inducement must not be assumed.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) states that growth -inducing effects are not to be
construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment.
Therefore, the following analysis is provided as additional information on ways in which the Project
could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of
developing the land use concepts examined in the Draft Supplemental EIR.
Establish substantial new permanent employment opportunities or otherwise stimulate
economic activity such that it would result in the need for additional housing, businesses,
and services to support increased economic activities.
The Project would redevelop the site to provide up to 1,583 residential units (encompassing
approximately 1,850,000 square feet of building space), 80,000 square feet of retail space,
300,000 square feet of office space, and approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open
space and common areas. Based on employment factors provided in the GPU PEIR, the
proposed retail and office space would generate approximately 985 jobs, resulting in a generated
net increase of 657 jobs compared to existing conditions. The generated net increase resulting
from the Project would not exceed the projected increase for nonresidential uses and employment
in the South Bristol Street Focus Area and therefore, would not result in unplanned
employment growth.
In addition, the Project would slightly reduce (improve) the City's jobs to housing ratio and would
benefit the City by introducing multi -family housing to the project site in a jobs -rich area in which
employees would be able to easily commute to nearby employment opportunities. Because the
area is jobs -rich, the addition of residential units in the area would not require additional job
growth. Therefore, the residential units would not indirectly result in the need for additional
employment opportunities, which could result in unplanned growth.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8-1
8 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Furthermore, jobs associated with the project's retail and office uses would be filled to some extent
by employees already residing in the vicinity of the Project. Residents and employees in the
Project vicinity would have convenient access to sustainable multimodal transportation that would
allow for walking, biking, and the use of existing transit, which could reduce vehicular trips and
thus, reduce travel impacts related to traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. In
addition, as the Project would provide housing, it would not result in the need for additional
housing. Implementation of the Project would stimulate economic activity as envisioned in the
GPU in a manner that balances the City's needs for housing, commerce, and recreation, without
inducing unplanned growth. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-15.)
Remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major
infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or would add
substantial capacity that could accommodate additional unplanned growth.
The Project is an infill redevelopment of an existing commercial property in the SBSFA. Overall,
the Project would redevelop the existing on -site infrastructure systems for water, water quality,
wastewater, and stormwater utility improvements to meet project -related demand. The new
infrastructure would not provide additional capacity beyond what is needed to serve the Project.
In addition, because the Project is within a developed area that is receiving services from existing
utility infrastructure and would connect to the existing infrastructure, development of the Project
would not result in an expansion of overall capacity, extension of infrastructure, or provision of
services in areas or an unserved area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not remove
obstacles to growth or add substantial capacity that could accommodate additional unplanned
growth. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-15 — 5-16.)
Remove obstacles to growth through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land
development.
Adoption of the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan, which contains the proposed development
standards, permitted uses, and administrative processes for future development, pursues the
envisioned buildout of the property as part of the City's GPU Land Use Plan. The Project would
be consistent with the land use designations proposed in the GPU PEIR, which allow for urban
retail, residential, mixed -use, and employment centers with an intensity of up to 5.0 FAR and/or
125 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the Project's estimated 3,659 residents would be 3.8 percent of the GPU PEIR's
estimated 96,855 persons resulting from Citywide growth, and the proposed 1,583 housing units
would be 4.4 percent of the GPU PEIR's estimated 36,261 housing units planned to be added
Citywide. Therefore, the population and housing growth from the Project would not exceed the
growth identified in the GPU PEIR. The Project would generate a net increase of 657 jobs which
would not exceed the increase in 3,505,130 square feet of nonresidential space and 7,855 jobs
projected for the SBSFA. Further, the Project would have a 0.42 jobs to housing ratio (i.e., 657
jobs to 1,583 housing units). The City of Santa Ana is jobs -rich with an existing jobs -housing ratio
of 2.0. The Project would slightly reduce (improve) the jobs to housing ratio and would benefit the
City by introducing multi -family housing to the Project site in a jobs -rich area in which employees
would be able to easily commute to nearby employment opportunities. In addition, as the area is
jobs -rich, the addition of residential units in the area would not require additional job growth. Thus,
the resulting population, housing, and employment growth from the Project would not exceed the
growth identified in the GPU PEIR, and no new substantial unplanned population growth would
occur that was not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. Further, Therefore, the Project would
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
not remove obstacles to growth through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land
development. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-16 — 5-17.)
Result in the Need to Expand One or More Public Service Facilities to Maintain Desired
Levels of Service
Implementation of the Project would result in increased demand for fire protection, police
protection, school services, and recreational facilities. The provision of new or physically altered
government facilities is typically associated with unplanned population growth or new residential
development. Buildout of the Project would not increase demand beyond that assumed for
buildout of the South Bristol Street Focus Area in the GPU PEIR, and thus, would not be
considered unplanned population growth. Further, the Project would adhere to regulations and
requirements such as undergoing site plan review by the Orange County Fire Authority and Santa
Ana Police Department and payment of facility fees and developer/impact fees. Therefore, the
Project would not result in the need to expand one or more public service facilities to maintain
desired levels of service. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-17.)
Involve Some Other Action that Could Encourage and Facilitate Other Activities that Could
Significantly Affect the Environment
The Project involves a zoning amendment to replace the existing SD-48 zoning of the Project site;
however, the proposed amendment is specific to the allowable land uses at the Project site. The
Project would not propose changes to any of the City's building safety standards (i.e., building,
grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply with all
applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition, project features and mitigation
measures have been identified to reduce potential environmental impacts to the amount feasible.
Therefore, the Project would not involve some other action that could encourage and facilitate
other activities that significantly affect the environment. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-17 — 5-18.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8-3
CHAPTER 9
FINDINGS REGARDING
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Draft Supplemental EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated
these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project's significant environmental effects
while also meeting the majority of the Project's objectives. The City finds that it has considered
and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section
sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light
of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA.
Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need
not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a
reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed
decision -making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider
alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a
range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its
reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the
nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that
a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1),
the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location
which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of
the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment
of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a
range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that
could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could
avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should
briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR
should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but
were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the
reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information
explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record.
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives,
(ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set
forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include
sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR
need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the Project.
As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would not in result in significant
impacts that are considered unavoidable, with the exception of impacts related to recreation. In
making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Ana certifies that it has independently
reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the
information provided in the comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR and the responses thereto.
9.1 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify
alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed
consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2)
briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Among the factors that
may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet
most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation
in Section 6.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected of the Draft Supplemental EIR are
discussed below:
9.1.1 Buildout of the Zoning Designation Alternative
The Buildout of the Zoning Designation Alternative would entail buildout of the project site
pursuant to the standards and regulations in the City's SD-48, amended in January 1989.' The
SD-48 permitted uses include, but are not limited to, retail specialty, office, restaurants, specialty
markets, beauty salons, banks, and theaters. Conditional uses permitted included live dance
entertainment and alcoholic beverage sales. The SD-48 also includes development standards for
parking for land use types, building setbacks (at a minimum of 15 feet), height (at a maximum of
35 feet), landscaping, signage, and building uses. The project site is currently occupied by the
South Coast Plaza Village commercial center on both sides of South Plaza Drive which consists
of approximately 164,049 square feet of retail shops and restaurants, offices, and the Regency
Theatres cinema building. The majority of the buildings are at the maximum height of 35 feet. The
property also provides surface parking, a variety of trees and a half -acre open space lawn area.
Therefore, the existing development at the project site is reflective of the standards established
under SD-48. It is not realistic that the site would be redeveloped with new or modified commercial
uses consistent with the existing SD-48 zoning. Additionally, the permitted uses under the SD-48
do not allow for residential, office, or open space uses.
City of Santa Ana, January 17, 1989, Specific Development No. 48, Amendment Application 1017 NS-1997.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
W
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Finding: The City Council rejects the Buildout of the Zoning Designation Alternative, on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1) this alternative would not achieve the basic project objectives of developing a
residential mixed -use residential project and would not implement the GPU's vision for the South
Bristol Street Focus Area; and (2) the alternative is technically, financially, and legally infeasible
given that the existing development at the Project site is reflective of the standards established
under SD-48 and it is not realistic the site would be redeveloped with new or modified commercial
uses consistent with the existing SD-48 zoning Thus, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration
9.1.2 Off -Site Alternative
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A], only locations that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion
in the EIR. The Project would not cause any new significant impacts or substantial increase in
previously identified significant impacts from those identified in the GPU PEIR.
As discussed in the project objectives, a fundamental purpose of building out the Project at the
selected Project site is to implement the vision and objectives established in the City of Santa Ana
General Plan for the South Bristol Street Focus Area, primarily to transform auto -oriented
shopping plazas into walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -friendly urban villages. Thus, the Project
would redevelop an existing auto -oriented plaza that has already been disturbed by previous uses
and is served by existing services, avoiding the need for new construction at an undeveloped site.
Additionally, due to their age, the existing buildings at the South Coast Plaza Village have
outdated infrastructure, which results in operational inefficiencies and outdated seismic
code compliance.
The Project site is located in a fully developed urban area of the City of Santa Ana and acquiring
off -site property may not be financially reasonable or logistically feasible. Acquiring new property
outside of the existing project site would also not eliminate the need to transform the existing auto -
oriented shopping plazas in the South Bristol Street Focus Area into urban villages. Furthermore,
there are limited, if any available properties comparable to the Project site of sufficient size,
dimensions, and land use designation (District Center), and without existing residences that would
otherwise require displacement within the GPU-identified South Bristol Street Focus Area and
South Coast Metro Area that would allow for high -intensity mixed uses.
Finding: The City Council rejects the Off -Site Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which
individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would
not meet project objectives; and (2) acquiring off -site property may not be financially reasonable
or logistically feasible. For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated from
further consideration.
9.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in Section 6.6 Alternatives Selected for
Further Analysis of the Draft Supplemental EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
• Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
• Alternative 3: Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9-3
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-1: Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives provides, in summary format,
a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the Project. In addition, Table
9-2: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives' Ability to Meet Project Objectives provides a
comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the Project.
9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the EIR is required to evaluate and
analyze the impacts of a No Project Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing
land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No Project Alternative includes what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
Further, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states, "In certain instances, the no
project alternative means 'no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." In
addition, the No Project/No Build Alternative includes what would be reasonably expected to occur
in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services.
Therefore, under this alternative, no new development would occur on the project site, and the
site would remain in its existing condition as the South Coast Plaza Village with seven existing
buildings, totaling approximately 164,049 square feet of existing commercial retail uses, with
surface parking and landscaping. In this alternative scenario, the seven buildings are assumed to
be fully operational as a shopping plaza with multiple retail uses, a restaurant, and a movie
theater. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 6-7.)
Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in the continued
operation of the existing South Coast Plaza Village, containing seven commercial buildings,
surface parking, and landscaping. Development and operation of the proposed mixed -use
development would not occur. As a result, the No Project/No Build Alternative would result in
reduced impacts related to construction and operation compared to the Project and would not
require the mitigation measures related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise,
and tribal cultural resources. However, the benefits of the Project would also not occur, including
implementation of the GPU South Bristol Street Focus Area objectives; improvements to roadway,
pedestrian, bicycle infrastructure; low impact development (LID) -compliant infrastructure
improvements; provision of housing within a Transit Priority Area (TPA); and improvements to the
jobs/housing balance. Further, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not build out the GPU's
DC-5 designation as a major development activity area and anchor to the City's commercial
corridors and would not implement the GPU South Bristol Street Focus Area vision and objectives,
or the SCAG policies promoting high -density, infill development. This alternative also would not
assist in the improvement of the job/housing balance or reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Therefore, this alternative would not be consistent with the GPU and would not implement the
City's land use plan to the same extent as the Project. Impacts under the No Project/No Build
Alternative related to land use would be greater than the less -than -significant impacts of the
Project. Generally, the impacts of the No Project/No Build Alternative would be less in severity
than those of the Project and would not require implementation of mitigation measures, with the
exception of land use and planning; however, this alternative would not implement the benefits
resulting from the Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 6-8 — 6-13.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9-4
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Attainment of Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative not meet any of the
project objectives listed in Section 2.3, Project Objectives. The No Project/No Build Alternative
would continue the operation of the existing South Coast Plaza Village and maintain the existing
seven commercial buildings and surface parking. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not
implement the mixed -use development, containing integrated residential and commercial uses,
which contributes to the creation of a vibrant urban core by enhancing community amenities,
recreational, and open space areas and providing alternative transportation and mobility options
in the GPU South Bristol Street Focus Area. The Project site would remain a conventional auto -
oriented shopping plaza with large surface parking areas. (Draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 6-13 — 6-14.)
Findings: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following
grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternative fails to meet any of the basic Project objectives; (2) the alternative would result
in increased impacts relating to land use and planning; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.
9.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the commercial square footage, change the
residential mix to reduce the number of residents, and remove the office uses from the mixed use
development to minimize operational impacts to volatile organic compounds associated with area
sources and construction -related impacts related to ground disturbance. Alternative 2 would
reduce the total commercial square footage to 50,000 square feet, provide 1,433 multi -family
residential units and 150 senior (age restricted) living units, and provide 7.5 acres of publicly
accessible parks/recreation facilities and open space. To support the Reduced Project
Alternative's mix of uses, the total number of parking stalls would be reduced to 2,296 stalls.
Further, the total amount of bicycle stalls would be reduced to 138 stalls. Maximum excavation
depths would reach 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) for one level of subterranean parking
under this alternative. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 6-14.)
Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced magnitude
of construction -related impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. However, as with the
Project, impacts would still be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation, which
would be similar to those of the Project due to the similar types of construction activities.
During operation, the Reduced Project Alternative would be expected to result in reduced
emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs, energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, overall
population, and demand for public services, parks, and utility services. The overall reduction in
volume of these factors would occur primarily due to the reduced commercial square footage
elimination of office uses, and the replacement of some standard residential units with senior
living residences. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide 7.5 acres of publicly accessible
parks/recreation facilities and open space, resulting in a slightly higher recreation -to -resident ratio
of 2.1 acres per 1,000 residents than the Project. However, significant and unavoidable impacts
to recreation would remain. Although the volume of impacts would be reduced by the Reduced
Project Alternative in comparison to the Project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not
eliminate the significant and unavoidable recreation impacts or the less than significant impacts
of the Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 6-14 — 6-20.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the project
objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project. The Reduced Project Alternative would still
transform the conventional auto -oriented shopping plaza with large surface parking areas to a
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9-5
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
mixed -use development. However, this alternative would not maximize the opportunities to the
same extent as the Project as described in the Project objectives to incorporate a mix of high -
intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial uses as there would be fewer
retail services and no office uses. Although this alternative would still provide new retail services
and associated jobs, the fewer retail services would result in a net decrease of jobs from existing
conditions and would not complement the South Coast Metro area with a diversity of new housing
in a jobs -rich environment as strongly as the Project. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 6-21.)
Findings: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, on the following
grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternative fails to meet the basic Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed
Project; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable
impacts relating to recreation.
9.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative
The Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would reduce residential and
commercial uses and remove office space to minimize operational impacts to volatile organic
compounds associated with area sources and avoid the construction -related impacts related to
ground disturbance required for subterranean parking (i.e., excavations below 14 bgs). Alternative
3 would reduce the number of residential units to 1,000 units, the total commercial area to 25,000
square feet, and the publicly accessible parks/recreation facilities and open space to 6.8 acres.
This alternative would not include the proposed subterranean parking level and associated
excavation activities and would reduce the overall length and magnitude of construction phasing.
Alternative 3 would construct two surface parking lots and a three -level parking garage in addition
to the podium parking levels within the residential buildings. To support Alternative 3, a parking
garage would be added to Block D (located in the northern central portion of the project site), and
surface parking would be added to Blocks F and H (located in the eastern central portion and the
center of the project site, respectively). The total amount of parking stalls would be reduced to
1,500 stalls, and the total amount of bicycle stalls would be reduced to 96 stalls. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 6-21.)
Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would
result in a reduced magnitude of impacts related to construction activities and resulting area and
depth of ground disturbance. As such, construction impacts related to air quality, cultural
resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources would be
reduced. However, as with the Project, impacts would still be less than significant or less than
significant with mitigation, but residual impacts would be less when compared to those of
the Project.
During operation, the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would be
expected to result in reduced emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs, energy consumption,
vehicle miles traveled, overall population, and demand for public services and utility services. The
Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would provide 6.8 acres of publicly
accessible parks/recreation facilities and open space, resulting in a higher recreation -to -resident
ratio of 2.8 acres per 1,000 residents than the Project. However, significant and unavoidable
impacts to recreation would remain. Although the volume of impacts would be reduced by the
Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative in comparison to the Project, the
Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would not eliminate the significant and
unavoidable recreation impacts or the less than significant impacts of the Project. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, pp. 6-27 — 6-28.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
W.
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Attainment of Project Objectives: The Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking
Alternative would not fully meet all of the project objectives. Though the Reduced Project with No
Subterranean Parking Alternative would transform the conventional auto -oriented shopping plaza
with large surface parking areas to a mixed -use development, this alternative would not maximize
the opportunities as described in the project objectives as there would be fewer retail services
and park space, no office uses, and no subsurface shared parking areas. The reduced
commercial and removal of office uses would result in a net decrease of jobs from existing
conditions that would not fully maximize the economic opportunities of the project site as
encouraged by the GPU or complement the South Coast Metro area with a diversity of new
housing in a jobs -rich environment. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 6-28.)
Findings: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Project with No Subterranean
Parking Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient
justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the basic Project
objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or
reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts relating to recreation.
9.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" when
significant environmental impacts result from a proposed project and, in cases where the "No
Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the project, the environmentally superior
development alternative must be identified. The Environmentally Superior Alternative for the
proposed project would be the No Project/No Build Alternative. When the No Project alternative
is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines,
§15126.6(3)(1).) One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior" to the Project:
the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative. The reduction or elimination of
project components under this alternative would result in reduced impacts to operational air
quality emissions, energy, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, transportation, and
demand for public services and utility services. The Reduced Project with No Subterranean
Parking Alternative would still require mitigation measures during construction related to air
quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources, though the
residual impacts would be less than those of the Project.
Operation of the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would still result in
less than significant impacts that are similar when compared to the Project for hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. This alternative
would also result in reduced operational air quality emissions, eliminating the need for the Project -
Specific MM AQ-1. The Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would provide
6.8 acres of publicly accessible parks/recreation facilities and open space, resulting in a
recreation -to -resident ratio of 2.8 acres per 1,000 residents which is higher than the 1.2 ratio of
the GPU PEIR but lower than the GPU's parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Thus,
significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation would remain. Although the volume of impacts
would be reduced by the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative in
comparison to the Project, the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would
not eliminate the significant and unavoidable recreation impacts or the less than significant
impacts of the Project. The Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would
provide fewer residential units, retail services, and no office uses, and thus would implement the
GPU South Bristol Street Focus Area objectives and many of the SCAG policies related to high -
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9-7
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
density, infill development, and improvement of the job/housing balance at a lesser extent than
the Project. However, impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant and similar
to those of the Project.
Overall, although the magnitude of impacts would be less under the Reduced Project with No
Subterranean Parking Alternative in comparison to the Project, the Reduced Project with No
Subterranean Parking Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable recreation
impacts, the less than significant impacts of the Project, or the need for mitigation.
In addition, the Reduced Project with No Subterranean Parking Alternative would not fully meet
all of the Project objectives. As previously discussed, though the Reduced Project with No
Subterranean Parking Alternative would transform the conventional auto -oriented shopping plaza
with large surface parking areas to a mixed -use development, this alternative would not maximize
the opportunities as described in the Project objectives as there would be fewer retail services
and park space, no office uses, and no subsurface shared parking areas. The reduced
commercial and removal of office uses would result in a net decrease of jobs from existing
conditions that would not fully maximize the economic opportunities of the Project site as
encouraged by the GPU. Overall, with the exception of a few Project objectives, this alternative
meets most of the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project. (Draft
Supplemental EIR, p. 6-29.)
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
M.
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-1: Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives
Impact Topic
GPU PEIR Impact
Project Impact
Alternative 1:
No Project/
No Build
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Reduced Project
Alternative
Alternative 3:
No Subterranean
Parking Alternative
Air Quality
S/U
LTS/M
Less (NI)
Less (LTS/M)
Less (LTS/M)
Cultural Resources
S/U
LTS/M
Less (NI)
Similar (LTS/M)
Less (LTS/M)
Energy
LTS
LTS
Less (NI)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Geology and Soils
LTS/M
LTS/M
Less (LTS)
Similar (LTS/M)
Less (LTS/M)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
S/U
LTS
Similar (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
LTS
LTS
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Hydrology and Water Quality
LTS
LTS
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Land Use and Planning
LTS
LTS
Greater (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Noise
S/U
LTS/M
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS/M)
Less (LTS/M)
Population and Housing
S/U
LTS
Less (NI)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Public Services
LTS
LTS
Less (NI)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Recreation
S/U
S/U*
Less (NI)
Similar (S/U*)
Less (S/U*)
Transportation
LTS
LTS
Similar (NI)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Tribal Cultural Resources
LTS/M
LTS/M
Less (NI)
Similar (LTS/M)
Less (LTS/M)
Utilities and Service Systems
LTS
LTS
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Less (LTS)
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant; LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation; NI = No Impact; S/U = Significant and Unavoidable
*Impacts do not increase the severity of the impacts identified in the GPU PEIR.
Source: Michael Baker International, 2025.
City of Santa Ana
August2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-2: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives' Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Objective
Proposed
No Project/
Reduced Project
No Subterranean
Project
No Build
Alternative
parking
Alternative
Alternative
Implement the vision and objectives established in the City of Santa Ana
General Plan for the South Bristol Street Focus Area as the City's
southern gateway and part of the South Coast Metro area by creating
opportunities to transform auto -oriented shopping plazas to walkable,
bike -friendly, and transit -friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix of
high -intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
uses. The following are based on the South Bristol Street Focus Area
same extent as the
same extent as the
objectives:
Yes
No
proposed project (no
proposed project
• Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area;
high -intensity office)
(no high -intensity
• Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential
office)
commercial uses that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit
oriented;
• Provide for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent,
established low density neighborhoods
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
same extent as the
same extent as the
Foster a neighborly environment that blends health living,working,proposed
g y y
Yes
No
project
p p p �
proposed project
(reduced
shopping, and dining in a contemporary village environment.
(reduced commercial
commercial and
and removal of office
removal of office
uses)
uses)
Anchor the South Bristol Street Focus Area, as envisioned by the City, by
Yes, but not to the
transforming conventional auto -oriented shopping plazas with large
same extent as the
surface parking areas to a community that maximizes opportunities for
Yes
No
proposed project
No
onsite open space which can be accomplished through the provision of
(reduced to one level
subsurface shared parking and intensity of land use permitted by the
of subterranean
General Plan.
parking)
City of Santa Ana
August2025
9-10
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-2: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives' Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Objective
Proposed
No Project/
Reduced Project
No Subterranean
Project
No Build
Alternative
parking
Alternative
Alternative
Capture Orange County's indoor -outdoor lifestyle through attention to
detail in the design of buildings, selection of materials, infusion of nature
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
in outdoor spaces, and the activities offered in the Village.
Yes, but not to the
same extent as the
Yes, but not to the
Builds on the foundation of dynamic areas through new experiences in
proposed project
same extent as the
food, fitness, and artisan retail.
Yes
No
(fewer retail services
proposed project
may not include food,
(fewer retail
fitness, or artisan
services)
retail)
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
same extent as the
same extent as the
Complements the successful South Coast Metro area with a diversity of
Yes
No
proposed project
proposed project
new housing in a jobs -rich environment.
(would result in a net
(would result in a
decrease of jobs from
net decrease of
existing)
jobs from existing)
Yes, but not to the
same extent as the
Yes, but not to the
Attracts the innovative and start-up culture of Orange County and
proposed project
same extent as the
provides thoughtfully designed spaces to create and showcase new
p g Y g p
Yes
No
(reduced commercial
proposed project
offerings.
and removal of office
(reduced
uses)
commercial and
City of Santa Ana
August2025
9-11
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-2: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives' Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Objective
Proposed
No Project/
Reduced Project
No Subterranean
Project
No Build
Alternative
parking
Alternative
Alternative
removal of office
uses)
Complements and does not compete with the emerging business
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
environment of Downtown Santa Ana.
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
Allow for the flexible redevelopment of the underutilized Project site to
same extent as the
same extent as the
provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the South
proposed project
proposed project
Bristol Street Focus Area that integrate into the existing urban systems
Yes
No
(reduced commercial
(reduced
and provide a safe and attractive environment for living and working, as
and removal of office
reside ntial/commer
encouraged by the GPU.
uses)
cial and removal of
office uses)
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
Develop high quality residential spaces that reflect modern lifestyles,
same extent as the
same extent as the
proposed project
while responding to the vision of the GPU to help bring higher density
Yes
No
proposed project
(reduced
housing into ajobs-rich area of the City planned for growth, to facilitate
(reduced commercial
residential/commer
balancing the City's jobs -housing ratio.
and removal of office
cial and removal of
uses)
office uses)
Yes, but not to the
Yes, but not to the
same extent as the
same extent as the
Provide a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital
proposed project
proposed project
investment, attraction of economic activity, and the expansion of the tax
Yes
No
(reduced commercial
(reduced
base.
and removal of office
commercial and
uses)
removal of office
uses)
Enhance alternative transportation activity by creating a walkable and
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
bikeable mixed -use development that links with existing facilities and
City of Santa Ana
August2025
9-12
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
9 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-2: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives' Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Objective
Proposed
No Project/
Reduced Project
No Subterranean
Project
No Build
Alternative
parking
Alternative
Alternative
transit services to encourage non -automotive travel within the Specific
Plan area and the local community.
Provide a project that contributes to the creation of a vibrant urban core
for the City by providing engaging and attractive community amenities,
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
recreational and open space areas, and gathering spaces that serve both
residents of the project and the surrounding community.
Create new open space and community -serving recreational amenities in
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
an identified park -deficient area.
Source: Michael Baker International, 2025.
City of Santa Ana
August2025
9-13
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
CHAPTER 10
STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification
of the Supplemental EIR for proposed The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project (proposed
Project or The Village). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant,
and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those
impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the
City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations,
which states:
a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide
environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks
when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits,
of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations
shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant
unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable
adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures
with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of
which both meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
10-1
10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
reasons discussed in the Findings (as described in Chapter 7, Findings Regarding
Project Alternatives).
The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the information
contained in The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Draft Supplemental EIR and the Final
Supplemental EIR, including responses to comments, and reviewed all written materials within
the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against
the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve
the Project.
10.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described
in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for the Project impacts related to
recreation. Details of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to recreation were
discussed in the Supplemental EIR and are summarized or were otherwise provided in the CEQA
Findings of Fact (as described above).
10.3 PROJECT BENEFITS
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above
are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the Project, each of which standing alone is
sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the Project are as follows:
• The Project implements the vision of the General Plan for the South Bristol Street Focus
Area by:
o Capitalizing on the success of the South Coast Metro area;
o Introducing mixed -use urban villages and encouraging experiential commercial
uses that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit -oriented;
o Providing for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established low
density neighborhoods.
• The Project fosters a neighborly environment where residents can live, work, and recreate
in a vibrant village community.
• The Project anchors Santa Ana's South Bristol Street Focus Area as envisioned by the
City to transform conventional auto -oriented shopping plazas into dynamic nodes of
activity that blend healthy living, working, shopping, and dining in a contemporary village
environment with 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and common areas which
captures Orange County's indoor -outdoor lifestyle.
• The Project allows for the flexible redevelopment of the underutilized project site to provide
a balanced mix of residential, retail, recreation, and office uses in the South Bristol Street
Focus Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and attractive
environment for living and working, as encouraged by and consistent with the GPLI.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
10-2
10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
• The Project will redevelop the underutilized and currently vehicle -centric site by
introducing a mixed -use development within a Pedestrian Opportunity Zone by developing
sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and a fitness loop to encourage pedestrian mobility to
reduce overall VMT compared to the existing conditions.
• The Project provides a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital
investment, the creation of new jobs, development of more commercial opportunities,
attraction of economic activity, and the expansion of the tax base.
• The Project develops high quality residential spaces that reflect modern lifestyles, while
responding to the vision of the GPU to help bring higher density housing into a jobs -rich
area of the City planned for growth, to facilitate balancing the City's jobs -housing ratio.
• The Project includes new residential and mixed -use buildings that would provide housing
opportunities for residents in the City's South Bristol Street Focus Area which
complements the successful South Coast Metro area with a diversity of new housing in a
jobs -rich environment and implements the goals and policies of SCAG's Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
• The Project enhances alternative transportation activity by creating a walkable and
bikeable mixed -use development that links with existing facilities and transit services to
encourage non -automotive travel within the Specific Plan area and the local community.
• The Project contributes to the creation of a vibrant urban core for the City by providing
vibrant and attractive community amenities, recreational and open space areas, and
gathering spaces that are directly accessible to residents and the community, and takes
advantage of the site's location within the South Coast Metro area.
• The Project provides community benefits commensurate with the Specific Plan
development proposal including public open space onsite and locations for public
community events, as well as streetscape improvements along the Project site frontages
of Sunflower Avenue and Bear Street.
10.4 CONCLUSION
The City Council finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological,
environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the Project separately and
independently outweigh the remaining significant, adverse impacts related to recreation and is an
overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the Project. The remaining
significant adverse impacts identified in Chapter 6 above, are acceptable in light of each of these
overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enumerated benefits of
the Project can be found in the Findings of Fact herein, the Final Supplemental EIR, the Project
itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of the Project. In the event
that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination that there are additional
remaining significant impacts resulting from the City's approval of the Project that cannot be
avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project, the CEQA
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to
such additional remaining significant impacts.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
10-3
CHAPTER 4
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves
or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which
identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect
to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring
program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project
approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (CEQA, Public
Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6). In compliance with these requirements, the City of
Santa Ana, lead agency, has prepared the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the Village Santa
Ana Specific Plan Project (project). The MMRP for the project, presented as Table 4-1, lists the
mitigation measures by environmental topic and identifies the timing for each measure, the
responsible party, and the monitoring party. The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the
project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP.
Any modifications to the terms and/or timing of the mitigation measures in this MMRP shall provide
a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than the approved mitigation measure.
The City of Santa Ana, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall
determine the adequacy of any proposed modifications and, if necessary, may refer said
determination to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Any costs associated with
information required to make a determination of adequacy shall be borne by the Applicant. No
changes to the MMRP shall be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements
of CEQA as determined by the City, the lead agency for the project.
City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
August 2025 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4-1
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
AIR QUALITY
RR AQ-1
New buildings are required to achieve the current
Prior to the
Property Owner
City of Santa
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
issuance of
or Project
Ana Planning
(Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building
occupancy
Applicant
Division
Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11).
permits
The 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards became effective January 1,
2020. The Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually
with a goal to achieve net zero buildings energy for
2030.
RR AQ-2
Construction activities will be conducted in
During
Project
City of Santa Ana
compliance with California Code of Regulations,
construction
Applicant/
Building
Title 13, Section 2449, which requires that
Construction
Safety Division
nonessential idling of construction equipment is
Contractor
restricted to five minutes or less.
RR AQ-3
Construction activities will be conducted in
Prior to
Project
City of Santa Ana
compliance with any applicable South Coast Air
demolition and
Applicant/
Building
Quality Management District rules and regulations,
during
Construction
Safety Division
including but not limited to:
construction
Contractor
• Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling
fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance.
• Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a
project shall not "discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health or safety of any
such persons orthe public, orwhich cause,
or have a natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or property."
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-2
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
• Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic
compound content of architectural
coatings.
• Rule 1466, Soil Disturbance. Projects that
involve earth -moving activities of more
than 50 cubic yards of soil with applicable
toxic air contaminants are subject to this
rule.
GPU PEIR
Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Note: This
MM AQ-1
Ana for development projects subject to CEQA
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
measure has been
(California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
approval
Division
satisfied with the
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall
analysis in The
prepare and submit a technical assessment
Village at Santa
evaluating potential project construction -related
Ana Supplemental
air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for
EIR, as described
review and approval. The evaluation shall be
on p. 4.1-38 of the
prepared in conformance with South Coast Air
Draft
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Supplemental EIR.
methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If
construction -related criteria air pollutants are
determined to have the potential to exceed the
SCAQMD's adopted thresholds of significance,
the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants
for new development projects incorporate
mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant
emissions during construction activities. These
identified measures shall be incorporated into all
appropriate construction documents (e.g.,
construction management plans) submitted to the
City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation
measures to reduce construction -related
emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Require fugitive -dust control measures
that exceed SCAQMD's Rule 403, such
as:
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-3
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
o Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to
reduce wind erosion.
o Apply water every four hours to
active soil -disturbing activities.
o Tarp and/or maintain a minimum
of 24 inches of freeboard on
trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or
other loose materials.
• Use construction equipment rated by the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency as having Tier 3 (model year
2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year
2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable
for engines between 50 and 750
horsepower.
• Ensure that construction equipment is
properly serviced and maintained to the
manufacturer's standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of construction
equipment to no more than five
consecutive minutes.
• Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on
unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks
or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the project area.
• Use Super -Compliant volatile organic
compound paints for coating of
architectural surfaces whenever possible.
A list of Super -Compliant architectural
coating manufactures can be found on the
SCAQMD's website.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-4
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GPU PER
Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Note: This
MM AQ-2
Ana for development projects subject to CEQA
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
measure has been
(California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
approval
Division
satisfied with the
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall
analysis in The
prepare and submit a technical assessment
Village at Santa
evaluating potential project operation phase-
Ana Supplemental
related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana
EIR, as described
for review and approval. The evaluation shall be
on p. 4.1-38 of the
prepared in conformance with SCAQMD
Draft
methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If
Supplemental EIR.
operation -related air pollutants are determined to
have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD's
adopted thresholds of significance, the City of
Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation
measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during
operational activities. The identified measures
shall be included as part of the conditions of
approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce
long-term emissions could include, but are not
limited to the following:
• For site -specific development that
requires refrigerated vehicles, the
construction documents shall
demonstrate an adequate number of
electrical service connections at loading
docks for plug-in of the anticipated
number of refrigerated trailers to reduce
idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light
industrial uses shall consider energy
storage and combined heat and power in
appropriate applications to optimize
renewable energy generation systems
and avoid peak energy use.
• Site -specific developments with truck
delivery and loading areas and truck
parking spaces shall include si na a as a
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-5
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
reminder to limit idling of vehicles while
parked for loading/unloading in
accordance with California Air Resources
Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 §
2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as
specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the
CALGreen Code (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per
Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code and
• Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for
low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and
carpool/van vehicles per Section
A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric
charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and
Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant -provided appliances (e.g.,
dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes
washers, and dryers) shall be Energy
Star —certified appliances or appliances of
equivalent energy efficiency. Installation
of Energy Star— certified or equivalent
appliances shall be verified by Building &
Safety during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects
along existing and planned transit routes
shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana
and Orange County Transit Authority to
ensure that bus pad and shelter
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-6
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
improvements are incorporated, as
appropriate.
Project-
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Prior to the
Property Owner
City of Santa
Specific
Planning Division shall confirm that the proposed
issuance of
or Project
Ana Planning
MM AQ-1
project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
occupancy
Applicant
Division
(CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include
permits
contractual language that all landscaping
equipment used on -site shall utilize at least 50
percent electric landscaping equipment (e.g.,
lawnmowers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers). All
residential and non-residential properties shall be
equipped with exterior electrical outlets to
accommodate this requirement. This requirement
shall be included in the third -party vendor
agreements for landscape services for the building
owner and tenants, as applicable.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
RR CUL-1
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
During
Project
City of Santa Ana
requires that if human remains are discovered
construction
Applicant/
Planning Division
within the proposed project site, disturbance of the
Construction
site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner
Contractor
has investigated the circumstances, manner, and
cause of any death, and the recommendations
concerning the treatment and disposition of the
human remains have been made to the person
responsible for the excavation, or to his or her
authorized representative. If the coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his
or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or
has reason to believe the human remains to be
those of a Native American, he or she shall contact,
by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American
Heritage Commission.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-7
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
GPU PEIR
If the archaeological assessment did not identify
Prior to and
Project
City of Santa Ana
MM CUL-6
archaeological resources but found the area to be
during
Applicant/
Planning Division
highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a
construction
Construction
qualified archaeologist and a Native American
activities and
Contractor
monitor approved by a California Native American
ground -
Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage
disturbance
Commission as culturally affiliated with the project
activities
area shall monitor all ground -disturbing
construction and pre -construction activities in
areas with previously undisturbed soil of high
sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all
construction personnel prior to construction
activities of the proper procedures in the event of
an archaeological discovery. The training shall be
held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site
safety meeting and shall explain the importance
and legal basis for the protection of significant
archaeological resources. The Native American
monitor shall be invited to participate in this
training. In the event that archaeological resources
(artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -
disturbing activities, construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted
while the resources are evaluated for significance
by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's
Standards. This will include tribal consultation and
coordination with the Native American monitor in
the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or
tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be
significant, the long-term disposition of any
collected materials should be determined in
consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where
relevant; this could include curation with a
recognized scientific or educational repository,
transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an
area designated by the tribe.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-8
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
ENERGY
RR E-1
Construction activities will be conducted in
During
Project
City of Santa Ana
compliance with California Code of Regulations
construction
Applicant/
Building Safety
Section 2485, which requires that nonessential
Construction
Division
idling of construction equipment be restricted to five
Contractor
minutes or less.
RR E-2
At least 65 percent of all nonhazardous
During
Project
City of Santa Ana
construction and demolition waste from
construction
Applicant/
Building Safety
nonresidential construction associated with future
Construction
Division
development in the plan area shall be recycled
Contractor
and/or salvaged for reuse in line with the 2016
California Green Building Standards Code Section
5.408 (California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 11).
RR E-3
New buildings implemented as part of the General
Prior to the
Property Owner
City of Santa
Plan Update are required to achieve the current
issuance of
or Project
Ana Planning
California Building Energy and Efficiency
occupancy
Applicant
Division
Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title
permits
24, Part 6) and California Green Building
Standards Code (California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 11).
RR E-4
Any appliances associated with development in the
Prior to the
Property Owner
City of Santa
Plan Area shall meet the requirements of the 2012
issuance of
or Project
Ana Planning
Appliance Efficiency Regulations.
occupancy
Applicant
Division
permits
RR E-5
Development under the General Plan Update shall
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
support the goals of the renewables portfolio
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
standard, SB 350, and SB 100 to achieve a tiered
approval
Division
increase in the use of renewable energy to 60
percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
RR E-7
Development under the General Plan Update shall
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
be in compliance with state and local solid waste
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
regulations including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1327, AB
approval
Division
1826, and Section 5.408 of 2016 California Green
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-9
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
Building Standards Code (California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
RR G-1
Every public agency enforcing building regulations
Prior to
Project
City of Santa Ana
must adopt the provisions of the California Building
discretionary
Applicant
Building Safety
Code (CBC), which is Title 24, Part 2 of the
approval
Division
California Code of Regulations. The most recent
version is the 2019 CBC (effective January 1,
2020). The CBC is updated every three years and
provides minimum standards to protect property
and public safety by regulating the design and
construction of excavations, foundations, building
frames, retaining walls, and other building
elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking
and adverse soil conditions. The CBC also
contains provisions for earthquake safety based on
factors including occupancy type, the types of soil
and rock on -site, and the strength of ground
shaking with specified probability of occurring at a
site.
RR G-2
Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Buildings
Prior to
Project
City of Santa Ana
and Structures. These codes address grading
discretionary
Applicant
Building Safety
standards, excavation, and fills. This also includes
approval
Division
compliance with regulations for unreinforced
masonry structures in accordance with
"Unreinforced Masonry Law," found in California
Government Code §§ 8875 et seq. The City of
Santa Ana Building Official may place additional
requirements upon the construction of
infrastructure, buildings, and other improvements
based on the findings from plan check, soils
testing, and geotechnical investigations.
RR G-3
Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 39-51 requires
Prior to
Project
City of Santa Ana
that all buildings or structures within the city that
discretionary
Applicant
Building Safety
require plumbing fixtures must be connected to a
approval
Division
public sewer.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-10
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
GPU PEIR
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects
Prior to the
Project
City of Santa Ana
MM GEO-2
involving ground disturbance in previously
issuance of
Applicant/
Planning Division
undisturbed areas mapped with "low -to -high"
grading or
Construction
paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant
construction
Contractor
shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to
permits and, if
confirm whether the grading would occur at depths
necessary,
that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for
during ground -
paleontological resources. If confirmed that
disturbing
underlying sediments may have high sensitivity,
activities
construction activity shall be monitored by a
qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall
have the authority to halt construction during
construction activity as outlined in Mitigation
Measure GEO-3.
GPU PEIR
In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of
During ground-
Project
City of Santa Ana
MM GEO-3
depth or geologic formation, construction work
disturbing
Applicant/
Planning Division
shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its
activities
Construction
significance can be determined by a qualified
Contractor
paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be
recovered, prepared to the point of curation,
identified by qualified experts, listed in a database
to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated
paleontological curation facility in accordance with
the standards of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County. The repository shall be identified and a
curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to
collection of the fossils.
Project-
Incorporation of and Compliance with a Design-
Prior to the
Project
City of Santa Ana
Specific
Level Geotechnical Investigation
issuance of
Applicant/
Planning
MM G-1
A final design -level geotechnical investigation that
grading or
Construction
Division/City of
complies with all applicable state and local code
construction
Contractor
Santa Ana
requirements shall be prepared for each project
permits
Building Safety
structure by a qualified, California -licensed
Division
eotechnical engineer consistent with the
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-11
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
California Building Code and City of Santa Ana
requirements applicable at the time of issuance of
grading or construction permits. The final design -
level geotechnical investigation shall include
recommendations related to site grading and
earthwork, fill materials, compaction, foundations,
dewatering, and other structural elements. The
report recommendations shall be included in
construction specifications and permits, approved
by the City's Building and Safety Division, and
confirmed through on -site inspections.
Project-
Implementation of Geotechnical
Prior to the
Project
City of Santa Ana
Specific
Recommendations
issuance of
Applicant/
Planning
MM G-2
Project plans, grading specifications, and
grading or
Construction
Division/City of
construction permitting shall incorporate site-
construction
Contractor
Santa Ana
specific earthwork and ground improvement
permits
Building Safety
requirements related to seismic ground shaking,
Division
liquefaction, settlement, collapse, subsidence, and
expansive soils consistent with the California
Building Code and City of Santa Ana requirements
applicable at the time of issuance of grading or
construction permits as stated in the final design -
level geotechnical investigation and approved by
the City's Building and Safety Division. This shall
include recommendations related to site grading
and earthwork, fill materials, compaction,
foundations, dewatering, and other structural
elements.
Project-
The project applicant shall retain a qualified
During ground-
Project
City of Santa Ana
Specific
professional paleontologist to monitor or supervise
disturbing
Applicant/
Planning Division
MM G-3
full-time monitoring should excavation occur into
activities
Construction
native Pleistocene -age soil and bedrock greater
Contractor
than 4 feet in depth. Ground disturbance refers to
activities that would impact subsurface geologic
deposits, such as grading, excavation, boring, etc.
Activities taking lace in current topsoil or within
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-12
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
previously disturbed fill sediments, e.g., clearing,
grubbing, pavement rehabilitation, do not require
paleontological monitoring. Bedrock can occur at
varying depths depending on the portion of the
project area.
If no significant fossils have been recovered after
50 percent of excavation has been completed, full-
time monitoring may be modified to weekly spot-
check monitoring at the discretion of the qualified
professional paleontologist. If the qualified
professional paleontologist determines during the
course of excavations that project excavations are
located within fill or disturbed soils, or that the
sensitivity for significant paleontological resources
is otherwise low, then monitoring may be reduced
or suspended at the qualified professional
paleontologist's discretion. The determination to
reduce or discontinue paleontological monitoring in
the project area shall be based on the professional
opinion of the qualified professional paleontologist
regarding the potential for fossils to be present after
a reasonable extent of the geology and stratigraphy
has been evaluated.
GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
RR GHG-1
New buildings are required to achieve the current
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
(Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building
approval
Division
Standards (CALGreen) Code (Title 24, Part 11).
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
became effective January 1, 2020. The Building
and Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen
are updated tri-annually.
RR GHG-2
Construction activities are required to adhere to
During
Project
City of Santa Ana
California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section
construction
Applicant/
Building
Construction
Safety Division
Contractor
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-13
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
2449, which restricts the nonessential idling of
construction equipment to five minutes or less.
RR GHG-3
New buildings are required to adhere to the
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
California Green Building Standards Code and
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
approval
Division
requirements to increase water efficiency and
reduce urban per capita water demand.
RR GHG-7
The California Green Building Standards Code
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
(CALGreen) requires the recycling and/or
discretionary
Applicant/
Ana Planning
salvaging for reuse at minimum of 65 percent of the
approval
Construction
Division
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste
Contractor
generated during most "new construction" projects
(CALGreen Code §§ 4.408 and 5.408).
Construction contractors are required to submit a
construction waste management plan that
identifies the construction and demolition waste
materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling,
reuse on the project, or salvaged for future use or
sale and the amount (by weight or volume).
Project-
See above under Air Quality
--
--
--
--
Specific
MM AQ-1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
RR HAZA
Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be
During
Project
City of Santa
transported to and/or from projects developed
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
under the General Plan Update in compliance with
Construction
Division/City of
any applicable state and federal requirements,
Contractor
Santa Ana
including the U.S. Department of Transportation
Building Safety
regulations listed in the Code of Federal
Division
Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act); California Department of
Transportation standards; and the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
standards.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-14
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
RR HAZ-2
Hazardous waste generation, transportation,
During
Project
City of Santa
treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource
Construction
Division/City of
Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal
Contractor
Santa Ana
Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the
Building Safety
management of nonhazardous solid wastes and
Division
underground tanks storing petroleum and other
hazardous substances. The projects developed
under the General Plan Update will be designed
and constructed in accordance with the regulations
of the Orange County Health Care Agency,
Environmental Health Division, which serves as the
designated Certified Unified Program Agency.
RR HAZ-4
Demolition activities that have the potential to
During
Project
City of Santa
expose construction workers and/or the public to
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
asbestos -containing materials or lead -based paint
Construction
Division/City of
will be conducted in accordance with applicable
Contractor
Santa Ana
regulations, including, but not limited to:
Building Safety
• South Coast Air Quality Management
Division
District's Rule 1403
• California Health and Safety Code
(Section 39650 et seq.)
• California Code of Regulations (Title 8,
Section 1529)
• California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations (California
Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section
1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1
[Lead])
• Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40,
Part 61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part 763
[asbestos], and Title 29, Part 1926
[asbestos and lead])
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-15
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
RR HAZ-5
The removal of hazardous materials, such as
During
Project
City of Santa
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury-
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed
Construction
Division/City of
in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant
Contractor
Santa Ana
to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-
Building Safety
containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds)
Division
by workers with the hazardous waste operations
and emergency response (HAZWOPER) training,
as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192.
RR HAZ-6
New construction, excavations, and/or new utility
During
Project
City of Santa
lines within 10 feet or crossing existing high-
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum
Construction
Division/City of
pipelines, or electrical lines greater than 60,000
Contractor
Santa Ana
volts will be designed and constructed in
Building Safety
accordance with the California Code of Regulations
Division
(Title 8, Section 1541).
RR HAZ-7
Development will be designed and constructed in
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
accordance with the airport environs land use plan
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
for John Wayne Airport. Building height restrictions,
approval
Division/ALUC
as specified in the airport environs land use plan,
would apply in the city.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
RR HYD-1
All development pursuant to the General Plan
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Update shall comply with the requirements of the
issuance of
Applicant/
Ana Planning
Construction General Permit (Order No. 2022-
permit
Construction
Division/City of
0057-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated
Contractor
Santa Ana
with construction activity. Compliance requires
Building Safety
filing a Notice of Intent, a Risk Assessment, a Site
Division
Map, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
associated best management practices, an annual
fee, and a signed certification statement.
RR HYD-4
All development pursuant to the General Plan
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Update shall comply with the requirements of the
issuance of
Applicant/
Ana Planning
Orange County MS4 Permit Order R8-2009-
permit
Division/City of
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-16
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by
Construction
Santa Ana
Order No. R8-2010-0062). The MS4 Permit
Contractor
Building Safety
requires new development and redevelopment
Division
projects to:
• Control contaminants into storm drain
systems
• Educate the public about stormwater
impacts
• Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
• Control runoff from construction sites
• Implement best management practices
and site -specific runoff controls and
treatments for new development and
redevelopment
RR HYD-5
All development pursuant to the General Plan
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Update shall comply with the requirements detailed
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
in Chapter 18 Article IV of the Santa Ana Municipal
approval
Division
Code.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
RR LU-1
Development associated with the General Plan
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Update would be designed and constructed in
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
accordance with the applicable provisions of
approval
Division
Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the City of Santa Ana
Municipal Code. Development within specific plan
areas, overlay areas, and specific development
districts would implement zoning and development
standards that are applicable within these
subareas in addition to those in the underlying
zoning district.
RR HAZ-7
See above under Hazards and Hazardous
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Materials
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
approval
Division
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-17
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
NOISE
RR N0I-1
California Building Code: The California Building
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2,
approval
Division
Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that
interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources
shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The
noise metric is evaluated as either the day -night
average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise
element of the local general plan.
The State of California's noise insulation standards
for non-residential uses are codified in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building
Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or
renovation construction projects in California to
control interior noise levels resulting from exterior
noise sources. Proposed projects may use either
the prescriptive method (Section 5.507.4.1) or the
performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show
compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a
project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings
for the wall and roof -ceiling assemblies and exterior
windows when located within a noise environment
of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance
method, a project must demonstrate that interior
noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1 hr).
RR N0I-2
Construction Noise Sources: Section 18-314(e) of
During
Project
City of Santa
the Santa Ana Municipal Code prohibits
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
construction activities to the hours of 7:00 AM to
Construction
Division
8:00 PM Monday through Saturday.
Contractor
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-18
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
RR N0I-2
Stationary Noise Sources: Section 18.312 of the
During
Project
City of Santa
Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes standards
construction
Applicant/
Ana Planning
for stationary noise sources (see Table 4.9-2: Land
Construction
Division
Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Contractor
Environments of the Draft Supplemental EIR).
Project
Prior to the issuance of a permit to conduct
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
Specific
nighttime construction activities (e.g., overnight
issuance of a
Applicant/
Ana Planning
MM N0I-1
concrete pours), the Project Applicant shall obtain
permit to
Construction
Division/City of
a permit from the City to complete work outside the
conduct
Contractor
Santa Ana
standard construction hours outlined in Santa Ana
nighttime
Building Safety
Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). In addition, the
construction
Division
Project Applicant and/or contractor(s) shall develop
activities
a nighttime construction noise control plan that
demonstrates the construction techniques that will
be implemented to ensure noise levels remain
below the FTA's nighttime construction noise
criterion of 70 dBA Leq. Examples of such
construction techniques include but are not limited
to the following:
• Locate stationary equipment (e.g.,
generators, air compressors, etc.) away
from off -site residences/sensitive
receptors.
• Surround stationary equipment with noise
barriers or utilize a temporary noise barrier
to block the line of sight from such
equipment to nearby off -site
residences/sensitive receptors.
• Identify minimum separation distances
between mobile equipment (e.g., concrete
mixer trucks, concrete pump trucks, etc.)
and residences/sensitive receptors.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-19
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
PUBLIC SERVICES
RR FP-1
New buildings are required to meet the fire
Prior to the
Property Owner
City of Santa
regulations outlined in the California Health and
issuance of
or Project
Ana Planning
Safety Code (Sections 13000 et seq.).
occupancy
Applicant
Division
permits
RR SS-1
New residential and commercial development
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
shall pay development fee authorized by Section
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
65996 of the California Government Code to be
approval
Division
"full and complete school facilities mitigation."
RR LS-1
New residential development shall pay a property
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
excise tax per the City Municipal Code Section
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
35-114, Residential Development Tax.
approval
Division
RECREATION
RR RECA
Residential development associated with the
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
General Plan Update will be required to comply
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
with the provisions of the Municipal Code Chapter
approval
Division
35, Article IV (Residential Development Fee).
Residential development is mandated to pay fees,
dedicate land in lieu thereof, or a combination of
both for the purpose of preserving recreational
facilities in the City.
TRANSPORTATION
RR T-1
The City will design and operate a balanced,
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
multimodal circulation system network with all
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
users in mind —including bicyclists, public
approval
Division
transportation vehicles and riders, and
pedestrians of all ages and abilities in line with the
California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill
1358).
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-20
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
RR T-2
Projects pursuant to the General Plan Update will
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
implement fire protection requirements as detailed
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
in the Orange County Fire Authority's Fire
approval
Division
Prevention Guidelines and in the California Fire
Code.
TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
RR TCR-1
As per Assembly Bill 52, within 14 days of
Prior to
Project
City of Santa
deciding to undertake a project or determining that
discretionary
Applicant
Ana Planning
a project application is complete, the lead agency
approval
Division
must provide formal written notification to all tribes
who have requested it.
RR CUL-1
See above under Cultural Resources
--
--
--
--
GPU PEIR
MM CUL-6
See above under Cultural Resources
--
--
--
--
Project-
Native American Monitor - Gabrieleno Band of
Prior to and
Project
City of Santa Ana
Specific
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation:
during ground-
Applicant/
Planning Division
MM TCR-1
a. The project applicant shall retain a Native
disturbing
Construction
American monitor from or approved by the
activities
Contractor
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to
the commencement of any "ground -
disturbing activity" for the subject project at
any project locations (i.e., both onsite and
any offsite locations that are included in the
project description/definition and/or required
in connection with the proposed project, such
as public improvement work). "Ground -
disturbing activity" shall include, but is not
limited to, demolition, pavement removal,
potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal,
boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring
agreement shall be submitted to the Lead
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-21
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Agency prior to the earlier of the
commencement of any ground -disturbing
activity, or the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a ground -disturbing
activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring
logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type
of construction activities performed, locations
of ground -disturbing activities, soil types,
cultural -related materials, and any other
facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will
identify and describe any discovered tribal
cultural resources, including but not limited
to, Native American cultural and historical
artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc.,
(collectively, tribal cultural resources, or
"TCR"), as well as any discovered Native
American (ancestral) human remains and
burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be
provided to the project applicant upon written
request to the Tribe.
d. Onsite tribal monitoring by the Kizh Nation
and/or their representatives shall conclude
upon the earlier of the following (1) written
confirmation to the Kizh from a designated
point of contact for the project applicant or
lead agency that all ground -disturbing
activities and phases that may involve
ground -disturbing activities on the project site
or in connection with the project are
complete; or (2) a determination and written
notification by the Kizh to the project
applicant or Lead Agency that no future,
tanned construction activity and/or
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-22
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Signature/Date
Party
Party
of Compliance
development/construction phase at the
project site possesses the potential to impact
Kizh tribal cultural resources.
Project-
Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural
During ground-
Project
City of Santa Ana
Specific
Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-
disturbing
Applicant/
Planning Division
MM TCR-2
Ceremonial) - Gabrieleno Band of Mission
activities
Construction
Indians-Kizh Nation:
Contractor
a. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural
resources, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease
(i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet)
and shall not resume until the discovered tribal
cultural resource has been fully assessed by
the Kizh monitor in consultation with a
qualified archaeologist. The Kizh will recover
and retain all discovered tribal cultural
resources in the form and/or manner the Tribe
deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole
discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe
deems appropriate, including for educational,
cultural and/or historic purposes.
Project-
Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
During ground-
Project
City of Santa
Specific
Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects:
disturbing
Applicant/
Ana Planning
MM TCR-3
a. Native American human remains are defined
activities
Construction
Division
in Public Resources Code section 5097.98
Contractor
(d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in
any state of decomposition or skeletal
completeness. Funerary objects, called
associated grave goods in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or
grave goods are discovered or recognized on
the project site, then Public Resource Code
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-23
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
section 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall
be treated alike per Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered
human remains and/or burial goods.
e. Any discovery of human remains/burial
goods shall be kept confidential to prevent
further disturbance.
Project-
Native American Monitor - Juaneno Band of
During ground-
Project
City of Santa
Specific
Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes:
disturbing
Applicant/
Ana Planning
MM TCR-4
a. The Project applicant shall retain a Native
activities
Construction
Division
American Monitor from or approved by the
Contractor
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,
Acjachemen Nation- Belardes. The monitor
shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any ground -disturbing
activity for the subject project at all project
locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site
locations that are included in the project
description/ definition and/or required in
connection with the project, such as public
improvement work). "Ground -disturbing
activity" shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing,
auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring
agreement shall be submitted to the (City)
prior to the commencement of any ground -
disturbing activity, or the issuance of any
permit necessary to commence ground
disturbing activity.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-24
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring
logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground -disturbing activities, the
type of construction activities performed,
locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil
types, cultural -related materials, and any
other facts, conditions, materials, or
discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any
discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs),
including but not limited to, Native American
cultural and historical artifacts, remains,
places of significance, etc., as well as any
discovered Native American (ancestral)
human remains and burial goods. Copies of
monitor logs will be provided to the Project
applicant upon written request to the Tribe.
d. On -site tribal monitoring by the Juaneno
Band of Mission Indians and/or their
representatives shall conclude upon the
latter of the following (1) written confirmation
to the Tribe or Tribal monitoring agency
from a designated point of contact for the
Project applicant that all ground -disturbing
activities and phases that may involve the
Project are complete; or (2) a determination
and written notification by the Tribe or Tribal
monitoring agency to the Executive Director
of the Planning and Building Agency, or
designee that no future, planned
construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the
Project site possesses the potential to
impact TCRs.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-25
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Project-
Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural
During ground-
Project
City of Santa
Specific
Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-
disturbing
Applicant/
Ana Planning
MM TCR-5
Ceremonial) - Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,
activities
Construction
Division
Acjachemen Nation- Belardes:
Contractor
a. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural
resources (TCRs), all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than
the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not
resume until the discovered TCR has
been fully assessed by the Juaneno Band
of Mission Indians monitor in consultation
with a qualified archaeologist. The Tribe
or Tribal monitoring agency will recover
and retain all discovered TCRs in the form
and/or manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion,
and for any purpose the Tribe deems
appropriate, including for educational,
cultural and/or historic purposes.
Project-
Tribal Cultural Resource Finds, Dispute
During ground-
Project
City of Santa
Specific
Resolution, and Final Disposition:
disturbing
Applicant/
Ana Planning
MM TCR-6
If a tribal cultural resource is identified, then
activities
Construction
Division
avoidance is the preferred treatment. If avoidance
Contractor
is not feasible and both Tribal monitoring entities
claim cultural affiliation with and/or ancestral ties
to the discovered resources, then a Cultural
Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall
be created by the archaeologist, in coordination
with the consulting tribes (Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneno
Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-
Belardes) and all subsequent finds shall be
subject to this Plan. The consultation effort is
intended to be a meaningful and timely process of
seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-26
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Regulatory Requirements/Mitigation Measures
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of
all parties' cultural values and, where feasible,
seeking agreement on the appropriate treatment
and disposition of TCRs discovered. Final
disposition of any excavated resources may
include, but would not be limited to, reburying,
relocating, recording, and/or another culturally
appropriate treatment such as transfer to one of
the consulting tribes for any purpose the Tribe
deems appropriate, including for educational,
cultural and/or historic purposes. If it is
determined that mutual agreement cannot be
reached within 30 days of the initial consultation
meeting, the Plan shall be written such that any
excavated resources shall be reinterred on site in
a location free from future ground -disturbing
construction activities after documentation is
complete. Project construction will not resume
within the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e.,
not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the
Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment
Plan is prepared and implemented to the
satisfaction of the City.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
4-27
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO.
2025-01 TO ESTABLISH THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA
SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE
FOR THE PROJECT SITE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561
W. SUNFLOWER AVENUE, FROM SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT NO. 48 TO THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-6)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines,
and declares as follows:
A. Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general
partnership ("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of
various entitlements to facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed -use urban village ("Project").
B. The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa Ana
("City"), on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear
Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11
addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661 W. Sunflower Avenue;
3820, 3840, and 3951 S. Plaza Drive; and 3811 and 3851 S. Bear Street)
and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-451-01, 412-
451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
C. The Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-01
to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6 (SP-
6)) and to approve a zone change for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project Site into
six buildable lots; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01 outlining
terms and conditions for the Project.
D. The Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site and (2) redevelopment of the Project Site into
an urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet
of commercial/retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office space,
including 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and on -site parking
and landscaping.
E. The Project Site is currently zoned as SD-48 and has a General Plan (GPU)
land use designation of District Center —High (DC-5).
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 1 of 8
F. The Applicant is requesting approval and adoption of AA No. 2025-01 to (1)
establish SP-6 and (2) approve a zone change for the Project Site from SD-
48 to SP-6.
G. Pursuant to sections 41-592 and 41-667 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code
(SAMC), approval of a specific plan and a zone change require approval of
an ordinance by the City Council, with the Planning Commission serving as
advisory body.
H. Pursuant to Section 41-667 of the SAMC, the City Council must hold a
hearing before approving any proposed zone changes, including changes
to any sectional district maps.
Pursuant to sections 41-664 and 41-666 of the SAMC, prior to being
submitted to the City Council, a public hearing on a proposed zone change
must be held before the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission must transmit its recommendation on the proposed zone
change to the City Council.
J. On August 11, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana
held a duly -noticed public hearing on the entirety of AA No. 2025-01,
including both the proposed adoption of SP-6 and the proposed zone
change for the Project Site, recommending approval of AA No. 2025-01 to
the City Council.
K. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral
evidence presented, the City Council finds that the entirety of AA No. 2025-
01, including both the proposed adoption of SP-6 and the proposed zone
change for the Project Site, is consistent with the GPU, including, but not
limited to, its goals and policies, as follows:
The Project implements the vision and objectives of the South Bristol Street
Focus Area (SBSFA) by transforming an auto -oriented shopping center to
a walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -friendly urban village that incorporates
a mix of high -intensity office and residential living with experiential
commercial uses. The Project is consistent with the allowed intensity and
density of the DC-5 land use designation of the GPU. The Project also
supports several goals and policies of the GPU. Specifically, the Project is
consistent with the following goals and policies:
• Policy CM-1.6 (Recreation on Private Property) of the Community
Element, of promoting development and use of privately -owned
recreation and entertainment facilities that help meet the needs of
Santa Ana residents as the Project would include publicly accessible
open space that would be made available to the general public
through an irrevocable public access easement with the City and
would remain in effect through the life of the Project.
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 2 of 8
Policy CN-1.6 (New and Infill Residential Development) of the
Conservation Element encourages development that is mixed use,
pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, and clustered around centers.
The Project would introduce a mixed -use urban village and
encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable,
bike -friendly, and transit -oriented. The Project would create a
commercial core providing for sufficient local serving and destination
retail uses, residential opportunities, workplaces, and entertainment
amenities to enable residents and shoppers to reduce reliance on
the automobile.
Policy EP-3.4 (Complete Communities) of the Economic Prosperity
Element encourages the development of "complete communities"
that provide a range of housing, services, amenities, and
transportation options that support the retention and attraction of
skilled workforce and employment. The Project would implement the
vision of the SBSFA of creating an urban village that includes a range
of uses. The Project would promote a business -friendly environment
where businesses thrive and would facilitate a "complete community"
with a range of housing, services, and amenities and transportation
options to support the retention and attraction of a skilled workforce
and employment base.
Policy HE-1.5 (Infrastructure and Public Services) of the Housing
Element (HE) encourages the development of quality community
facilities, physical infrastructure, traffic management and parking
control, and other public services to promote the livability, safety, and
vitality of neighborhoods. The Project would provide safe access
points for pedestrians and bicyclists and would include new traffic
signals along Bear Street and Plaza Drive to improve traffic
management. The Parking Management Plan would also assist in
controlling parking impacts.
Policy HE-2.6 (Housing Design) of the HE requires excellence in
architectural design through the use of materials and colors, building
treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally
sensitive ("green") building and design practices. One primary
objective of SP-6 is to bring high quality design to the Project Site,
focusing on green standards, durable materials and visual integrity
and timeless architecture. The Project would incorporate quality
design, from the larger design of the commercial and residential
structures to the small details of materials, landscaping, pedestrian
network, and communal gathering spaces.
Policy LU-2.1 (Employment Opportunities) of the Land Use Element
(LU) encourages a broad spectrum of land uses and development
that offer employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana
residents. The Project would include a mix of land uses that will serve
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 3 of 8
as a catalyst for reinvestment, stimulate economic activity,
commerce, and new development opportunities in and around the
SBSFA. The Project would also have a positive contribution to the
local economy through new capital investment, the creation of jobs,
and the expansion of the tax base through the Project's long-term
investment and commitment to the City of Santa Ana.
• Policy LU-2.3 (Supportive Spaces) of the LU element encourages
providing a diversity of land uses that support residents, visitors, and
businesses, such as open space, areas for community gatherings,
and outdoor entertainment venues. One of the primary goals of the
Project is to foster a neighborly environment where residents can
live, work, and recreate in a vibrant village community. The Project
would encourage walkability, safety, shopping and dining and would
create community centric spaces for residents of all ages and
abilities.
• Policy LU-2.10 (Smart Growth) of the LU element emphasizes
focusing high density residential in mixed -use villages, designated
planning focus areas, downtown Santa Ana, and along major travel
corridors. The Project is located with the SBSFA, a planned focus
area. The Project would achieve the vision of the SBSFA of creating
high density housing within and along a mixed -use village that would
be the hub of activity, designed as a park -like setting that would
create an intimate and relaxing environment.
• Policy M-1.2 (Balanced Multimodal Network) of the Mobility Element
encourages providing a balanced and equitable multimodal
circulation network that reflects current and changing needs. The
Project would accommodate a variety of transportation within and
to/from the Project Site, including automobiles, walking, bikes, and
rideshare. The Project would include an internal pedestrian network
providing multiple access points along Bear Street, Sunflower
Avenue, and Plaza Drive. Additionally, the Project would include for
new bike lanes through and around the Project Site and bicycle
parking stations.
• Policy OS-1.9 (New Development) of the Open Space (OS) Element
requires all new development to provide adequate parks and open
space, including via parkland dedication or development fees, in
order to meet the City's Park standard. Ensure that new development
includes pedestrian and multi -modal travel ways to promote a quality
living environment. For new development within park deficient and
environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of
new public parkland over the collection of impact fees. The Project
would provide approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open
space, consisting of both active and passive open space that would
be open to the general public through an irrevocable public access
easement with the City and would remain in effect through the life of
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 4 of 8
the Project. Additionally, the Project would require 90 square feet of
private open space and 100 square feet of active or passive open
space per unit. The Project also prioritizes open space as a key
placemaking feature of the development.
Policy OS-2.1 (Recreation Variety) of the OS element encourages a
variety of recreation facilities and activities to meet the diverse needs
of the community. It also encourages the need for indoor and outdoor
recreation opportunities, as well as traditional and trending activities.
The Project would feature key open space areas. The Promenade
has been designed to draw pedestrians from the residential area
west of Bear Street, South Plaza Drive, and beyond to create a
distinct destination along Sunflower Avenue. The Square is intended
to be an intimate hub for public gathering, events, and relaxation from
day to night. Various seating areas, water features, and experiential
lighting and art are envisioned to activate the Square. A Fitness Loop
would encircle and thread through the Project Site and include
special markers to provide a continuous fitness path for residents
and neighbors. The Recreation Lawn has been designed as an area
where the community and their pets can gather and relax in a low-
water -grass space.
Moreover, the Project is consistent with and supports Implementation
Action No. LU-2.12 (Distinctive Districts) of the LU that requires the
development and adoption of specific plans or corridor plans for each of the
five focus areas that establish regulations and design standards. A full list
of all applicable General Plan goals and policies that support the Project are
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
L. The City Council has weighed and balanced the General Plan's goals and
policies and has determined that, based upon this balancing, the Project at
1561 W. Sunflower Avenue and AA No. 2025-01, including SP-6 and the
zone change, are consistent with the purpose of the General Plan.
M. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request
for City Council Action dated September 16, 2025, and October 7, 2025,
and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all
of which are incorporated herein by this reference. For these reasons, and
each of them, AA No. 2025-01 is hereby found and determined to be
consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise
justified by the public necessity convenience and general welfare.
Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., CEQA),
the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.,
the CEQA Guidelines), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR was made
available for public review for 52 days between April 17, 2025, and June 9, 2025. The
document was made available online at the City's website and available for review at City
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 5 of 8
Hall and the Southwest Senior Center in hard copy form. In response to comments
received on the Draft SEIR, the City prepared a Final SEIR and released it to the public
on August 4, 2025. The Final SEIR is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference. The City Council Resolution recommends certification of the Final
SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of
the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the
environmental findings and analysis set forth in the Resolution for the Final SEIR (SCH
No. 2020029087) as if fully set forth herein.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, hereby approves the AA No. 2025-01, and specifically, approves and adopts The
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6), a true and correct copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. This approval is based
upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited
to: The Request for City Council Action dated September 16, 2025, and October 7, 2025,
and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, also hereby approves the zone change for the Project Site from SD-48 to The
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6), as set forth in Amended Sectional District Map
No. 35-5-10, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and
incorporated herein by this reference. This approval is based upon the evidence
submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: The Request
for City Council Action dated September 16, 2025, and October 7, 2025, and exhibits
attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 5. The documents and materials associated with this Ordinance that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the
custodian of records for the record of proceedings.
Section 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the Applicant may
protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on
this development Project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures
established by sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code.
Section 7. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution
procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other
procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against
the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 6 of 8
annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project,
whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code
of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution,
statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal
counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this day of , 2025.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
-44
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No.
NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
on .2025.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 8 of 8
.�Plan
Consistency
Land Use Element
POLICYLU-1.8 DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFFS
The Specific Plan increases housing for the City while
Ensure that new development projects provide
providing publicly accessible open space and expanding
a net community benefit.
retail/commercial options. The Plan will create a space
for shopping, dining and recreation as well as encourage
walkable connections to the great South Coast shopping
area.
POLICYLU-1.9 PUBLIC FACILITIESAND
Chapter 3, Development Plan provides the proposed
INFRASTRUCTURE
infrastructure plan to support development of the Village
Evaluate individual new development proposals
which will not compound existing public facility and service
to determine if the proposals are consistent
deficiencies.
with the General Plan and to ensure that they
do not compound existing public facility and
service deficiencies.
POLICYLU-2.1 EMPLOYMENT
Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, the Plan provides for a mixed -use
OPPORTUNITIES
development that will increase housing andjob opportunity,
Provide a broad spectrum of land uses
in accordance with the General Plan and the designated
and development that offer employment
focus area. The Plan will create new spaces for a variety of
opportunities for current and future Santa Ana
commercial and retail uses.
residents.
POLICYLU-2.3 SUPPORTIVE SPACES
Chapter 2, one of the primary goals of the Plan is to foster a
Provide a diversity of land uses that support
neighborly environment where residents can live, work, and
residents, visitors, and businesses, such as
recreate in a vibrant village community. Through a variety
open space, areas for community gatherings,
of land uses, and plans to encourage walkability, safety,
and outdoor entertainment venues.
shopping and dining the Plan will create community centric
spaces for residents of all ages and abilities.
POLICYLU-2.5 BENEFITS OFMIXED-USE
Chapter 2 and 3, A primary focus of the plan is to transform
Encourage infill mixed -use development at all
conventional auto -oriented shopping plazas into dynamic
ranges of affordability to reduce vehicle miles
nodes of activity that blend healthy living, working,
traveled, improvejobs/housing balance, and
shopping, and dining in a contemporary village environment.
promote social interaction
Increasing housing opportunities adjacent to retail and
commercial centers encourages residents to walk or bike for
essential shopping needs.
POLICYLU-2.10 SMART GROWTH
Chapter 2, The plan is designated in the Bristol Street
Focus high density residential in mixed -use
focus area. The new development will achieve the vision to
villages, designated planning focus areas,
create high density housing within and along mixed- use
Downtown Santa Ana, and along major travel
villages. As noted by the Guiding Principles, in Chapter 2,
corridors.
unlike traditional commercial centers dominated by surface
parking, this neighborhood village will be the hub of activity,
designed within a parklike setting that creates an intimate
and relaxing environment.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan - August 2025
POLICYLU-4.1 COMPLEMENTARY USES
Promote complete neighborhoods by
encouraging a mix of complementary uses,
community services, and people places within a
walkable area.
Chapter 2 and 3, the Village Santa Ana is a mixed use village
with a thoughtfully designed site plan that focuses on
balance and seamless integration of different uses. A mix
of residential, retail, and office, provide a variety of options
for future residents. The plan provides outdoor space
both shared and privately and people who visit or live at
the Village will find a multitude of unique outdoor spaces
for strolling, reading, dining, meeting friends, exercising,
and enjoying outdoor recreation. Additionally, rooftops,
terraces, and balconies that face the park overlook the
activities at the ground level and offer an array of amenities
for residents.
POLICYLU-4.6 HEALTHYLIVING CONDITIONS
Proximity to essential resources, outdoor and recreational
Support diverse and innovative housing types
space and sustainable materials and practices create healthy
that improve living conditions and promote a
living environments for existing and future residents. The
healthy environment.
Plan will implement a variety of these practices through land
use, design and thoughtful planning. The new development
will aim to protect and care for the land. Best practices
for reduced energy and water consumption, sustainably
sourced materials, and integration of pervious surfaces
along with thoughtful plant selection will support on -
site water retention for this green village community.
Additionally, many units were strategically placed to face
open spaces and areas, created a garden unit feel.
FIGURE LU-2 SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS
The property is a part of one of the five new focus areas: #5
The property is a part of Focus Area #5: South
South Bristol Street. Discussion of inclusion in this Focus
Bristol street.
Area is covered in Chapter 1, Introduction. Additional details
of how the Plan is consistent with the South Bristol Street
focus area are outlined below.
TABLE LU-2. BUILDOUT TABLE
The South Bristol Street focus area is planned to
Focus
Area
Existing Housing Units
Existing Jobs
220
3,337
South
Bristol
Future Est. Housing Units
Future Est. Jobs
Street
F 5,272
7,855
accommodate a large amount of housing and employment.
The VSA project fits within the projected growth for South
Bristol Street. A maximum of 1,583 units are permitted
along with up to 80,000 square feet of commercial use
and 300,000 square feet of office use. The mix of housing,
directly adjacent to commercial and office use will bring a
variety ofjobs to the plan area and potentially increase the
number of residents who are able to walk or bike to work.
FIGURE LU-4 DENSITYAND INTENSITYMAP The density and intensity (du/acre and FAR) of Chapter 4,
The property site is designated as DC-5 which Development Standards are consistent with the DC-5 Land
means District Center -High with a maximum use Designation: 5.0 FAR and/or 125 du/ac, up to 25 stories.
density/intensity of 5.0 FAR and/or 125 du/ac
and typical max height of 25 stories.
Appendix B: General Plan Consistency
LU DESIGNATION- DISTRICT CENTER
The District Center land use designation
provides for distinctly urban retail, residential
mixed -use, and employment centers that
are well connected to public transportation.
It includes the city's primary activity centers
and opportunities for new urban -scale
development.
This designation allows a mix of uses,
including medium, medium -high, and urban
density condominiums, apartments, and
townhomes; professional offices; multilevel
corporate offices; retail and commercial
services; and cultural, education, recreation,
and entertainment uses. Mixed -use projects
are allowed in both horizontal configurations,
with commercial and residential uses side by
side, and vertical, with commercial uses on the
ground floor and residential above.
LU FOCUS AREA- SOUTH BRISTOL
The South Bristol Street Focus Area represents
Santa Ana's southern gateway and is a part
of the successful South Coast Metro area.
Between Sunflower and Alton Avenues, the
District Center land use designation will create
opportunities to transform auto -oriented
shopping plazas to walkable, bike -friendly, and
transit -friendly urban villages that incorporate a
mix of high intensity office and residential living
with experiential commercial uses.
Focus Area Objectives:
• Capitalize on the success of the South
Coast Metro area
• Introduce mixed -use urban villages and
encourage experiential commercial uses
that are more walkable, bike friendly, and
transit oriented.
• Realize an intense, multistory presence
along the corridor
• Provide for mixed -use opportunities while
protecting adjacent, established low
density neighborhoods
The mixed -use land use plan and permitted uses per Chapter
4, Development Standards, are consistent with the uses
described for the District Center designation. The Specific
Plan will implement the appropriate development and
design standards associated with these land uses to ensure
development and growth that is consistent with the District
Center Land Use goals.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan implements the vision
for a walkable, urban village. The Plan meets the objectives
in the following ways:
• Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro
area- The Village's location at the corner of Sunflower
and Bear integrates uses with village scale retail and
multi -family living that complement adjacent retail and
residential uses.
• Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage
experiential commercial uses that are more walkable,
bike friendly, and transit oriented. The Specific Plan
incorporates all aspects of this objective into the Plan
as especially demonstrated in Chapter 3, Development
Plan.
• Realize an intense, multistory presence along the
corridor- Chapter 4 Development Standards details
the requirements for a variety of height, setbacks, and
stepbacks along Sunflower and Bear contributing to the
corridor/district.
• Provide for mixed -use opportunities while protecting
adjacent, established low density neighborhoods- As
identified in Chapter 4, Development Standards, the
Village provides a mix of uses that are compatible
with the adjacent properties. The standards also
require height, stepbacks, setback and landscaping
requirements that provide certainty for the placement
and scale of future buildings.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan - August 2025
POLI CY HE-1.5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PUBLIC SERVICES
Provide quality community facilities, physical
infrastructure, traffic management and
parking control, and other public services to
promote the livability, safety, and vitality of
neighborhoods.
Chapter 3 describes the Mobility and Infrastructure plan
for the Village. Parking, accessibility, and multi -modal
transportation were key considerations when developing
the project. The plan ensures a variety of safe access points
for pedestrians and bikers as well as considers the flow of
traffic for ingress and egress points on Sunflower Blvd and
Bear St. The plan provides a proposed traffic signal where
Bear and S Plaza Dr. intersect as well as two new traffic
signals along S Plaza Dr. to ensure safe driving speed and
pedestrian crossing.
POLICY HE-2.3 URBAN VILLAGES
The Village will provide up to 1,583 units in a variety of
Create higher intensity, mixed -use urban
sizes for various household types. The plan integrates
villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences
high density housing with new shopping, dining and
that access and support the office
entertainment opportunities. The plan includes public
centers, commercial services, and cultural
art requirements, human scale design and landscaping
activities within District Centers and Urban
and walking and biking paths throughout the plan area.
Neighborhood designated areas.
Connecting future residents to the South Bristol Corridor
and nearby cultural, retail, and entertainment destinations
is a primary focus of the plan, truly integrating residents into
the local scene.
POLICYHE-2.6 HOUSING DESIGN
One primary objective of the plan is to bring high quality
Require excellence in architectural design
design to the project, focusing on green standards, durable
through the use of materials and colors,
materials and visual integrity and timeless architecture.
building treatments, landscaping, open space,
Additionally, Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan outlines the
parking, and environmentally sensitive ("green")
design guidelines and standards for the project. The Plan
building and design practices.
incorporates quality design throughout the project area,
from the larger design of the commercial and residential
structures to the small details of materials, landscaping,
pedestrian network, and communal gathering spaces.
Chapter 5 ensures the project will be built to create a sense
of place and address the various aspects of site planning,
architecture, and design.
POLICY HE-4.4 SERVICE -ENRICHED HOUSING
As a part of the plan, a range of senior housing is permitted.
Support the provision of supportive services
Chapter 4 of the plan specifies that both senior housing
and service -enriched housing for persons with
and senior care facilities are permitted in the project.
special needs, such as seniors, disabled people,
Senior housing within apartments provides benefits such
homeless people, families, veterans, and people
as localized access to markets and essential retail as well as
with medical conditions.
community -oriented living and walkable spaces.
POLICY HE-4.5 HEALTHYHOMES
Among the high -quality design of the project is an
Support efforts to make homes healthier by
emphasis on high quality materials. Project materials will
addressing health hazards associated with lead-
be in accordance with the requirements of the California
based paint and soil, asbestos, vermin, mold,
Building Code. The residential design focuses on integrating
VOC-laden materials, and prohibiting smoking
households into a green and healthy community.
in multi -family projects, among others.
Appendix B: General Plan Consistency
POLICY UD-1.1 DESIGN QUALITY
Ensure all developments feature high quality
design, materials, finishes, and construction.
Guiding Principal #2 of the Plan focuses on timeless design
stating that through human- scale design elements,
selection of warm materials, four- sided architecture, and
places for terrace gardens and green walls, the design of
the buildings will work holistically with the landscaping
and parklike village atmosphere. Additionally, the plan
identifies both thoughtful and high -quality design elements
throughout Chapter 5. Regarding landscape design, the
design guidelines will require a variety of materials for
accessibility and permeability. Furnishings and decorative
details will require high quality and durable materials
that provide visual variety per section 5.5.1 of the Plan.
Additionally, Building and architectural materials should be
high quality and approved for use in the California Building
Code.
POLICYUD-1.2 PUBLICART
Public art contributes significantly to the public experiences
Require public art as part of major
and identity of a place and is a primary focus of the design
developments and the public realm
and details of the project area. Chapter 5, section 5.4.5
improvements.
outlines the standards and requirements of public art in the
plan area. All requirements are consistent with the General
Plan's guidelines for public art. Additionally, public art should
be consistent and complimentary to the design of the
structures as well constructed using durable materials to
allow for longevity. The plan requires public art to support
and complement the public experience and will inhibit
accessibility of any uses on site.
POLICY UD-1.5 ATTRACTIVE PUBLIC SPACE
The core of the plan areas focuses on accessible, and activity
Encourage community interaction through
shared open space. Through high quality design, use of
the development and enhancement of plazas,
landscaping and greenery and community gather features
open space, people places, and pedestrian
(i.e. Benches), the central portion of the plan will encourage
connections with the public realm.
public engagement with the site. Chapter 5 of the plan
implements design guidelines which are reflective of Santa
Ana's focus on engaging and beautiful public environments.
The location of the plan area provides ease of connection
to the Arts Center to the east and South Coast Plaza to the
South. The focus on walkable urban form and accessible
space will allow for complete and connected circulation for
pedestrians and cyclists.
POLICYUD-4.21MAGE MAKING THROUGH
The Village will create a place of destination, filled with
ARCHITECTURE
vibrant and innovative design to reflect the growing Santa
Promote development within nodes to reflect
Ana city. The proximity to the South Coast Plaza, Performing
the significance of the area and cultivate a
Arts Center and Recently established Art Museum adds
positive image of Santa Ana through high
the cultural vitality of the project area. The project will
quality architecture.
integrate warm and timeless architectural design, public art
and walkable gather spaces to create a desirable village and
establish a sense of place for residents and visitors.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan - August 2025
POLICY UD-4.3 ACTIVE OPEN SPACES
Ensure architectural and landscape design
activates open space as a means to promote
community interaction and enhance the
aesthetic quality of development.
POLICYUD-4.4 VIBRANT STREET LIFE
Encourage development within nodes that
promotes pedestrian activities, enhanced
amenities, and engaging designs that allow for
discovery, excitement, and social interaction.
POLICYUD-5.1 BUILDING PRESENCEAT
INTERSECTIONS
Create a strong presence atfocus intersections
by locating intense building mass and open
space areas along the street that include high
quality design and materials.
POLICYUD-6.4 DECORATIVE FEATURES
Promote coordinated landscaping and
decorative features in projects near landmarks
that appropriately enhance the vicinity and do
not create visual clutter.
Guiding Principle #3 of the plan encourages and envisions
a multitude of unique outdoor spaces for strolling, reading,
dining, meeting friends, exercising, and playing. The retail
village common areas may be programmed for recurring
activities such as movie nights, seasonal events, exercise
options such as outdoor yoga, family nights, and other
opportunities for nearby residents. The use of public art,
programming, circulation and mobility design as well as
high quality materials support the Plan's ability to create an
activated and engaged shared outdoor space.
Guiding Principal #5 of the plan states new residential and
commercial buildings will orient toward the streets and
retail village and provide easy access for pedestrians. The
streetscape and building setbacks along Sunflower Avenue,
South Plaza Drive, Bear Street, and internal project roads
will be designed with a cohesive palette of drought -tolerant
plants with unique characteristics, brightly colored flowers,
and a mix of succulents and trees. Additionally, Principal #4
states that the Village Santa Ana will be an extension of the
art walk, showcasing art works in the form of landscaping,
stand-alone art pieces, and local artisan retail. Distinctive
architecture and high -quality materials will contribute to the
character of the Village.
Chapter 4 Land Use and Chapter 5 Design Guidelines also
ensure a harmonious layout of landscaping, open space,
walkways and structures.
The Intersection at Bear Street and Sunflower Avenue is one
of the key northern entrances to the South Coast Plaza area;
and therefore, should represent the vibrancy of the area.
The architecture and design for the Village should consider
the Southern California environment and indoor/outdoor
lifestyle as well as the design aesthetic of the adjacent South
Coast Metro area. Chapter 5 encourages a contemporary
architectural style, where buildings are different yet
complementary. Towers should create a unique identity
within the overall development where residential lobbies are
visible from the street and facade treatments are applied
visible sides, creating consistent frontage and design.
The use of lighting and landscaping will be used to create
cohesive and usable features in the plan area. The use of
decorative lighting treatments in landscaping, pedestrian
activity areas, and nodes and entryways support an
enhanced pedestrian experience. Additionally, the plan
aims to utilize outdoor furnishing and amenities to denote
community gathering spaces while paving and landscaping
denotes walkways and bikeways.
Appendix B: General Plan Consistency
POLICY OS-1.9
Require all new development to provide
adequate parks and open space, including via
parkland dedication or development fees, in
order to meet the City's Park standard. Ensure
that new development includes pedestrian and
multi -modal travel ways to promote a quality
living environment. For new development
within park deficient and environmental justice
areas, prioritize the creation and dedication
of new public parkland over the collection of
impact fees.
POLICYOS-2.1
Provide a variety of recreation facilities and
activities to meet the diverse needs of the
community. Consider needs for indoor and
outdoor recreation opportunities, as well as
traditional and trending activities.
The Specific Plan provides for approximately 7.5 acres of
publicly accessible open space, consisting of both active
and passive open space. Additionally, the Plan requires 90
square feet of private open space and 100 square feet of
active or passive open space per unit. The requirements for
open space in VSA are consistent with the General Plan's
requirements. The plan also prioritizes open space as a key
placemaking feature of the development.
Chapter 3 of the Plan outlines the key features of the open
space layout and site plan. The features are shown in Figure
3-3 of the plan and described below:
• The Promenade draws pedestrians from the residential
area west of Bear Street, South Plaza Drive, and beyond
to create a distinct destination along Sunflower Avenue.
Wide sidewalks with extensive planting, lighting, and art
weave connections to the amenities and gardens of the
Village.
• The Square is intended to be an intimate hub for public
gathering, events, and relaxation from day to night.
Various seating areas, water features, and experiential
lighting and art are envisioned to activate the Square.
This area can be programmed for large events such as
outdoor yoga and fitness classes, parties, markets, and
outdoor movie nights. Restaurant patios contribute to a
lively village vibe.
• Garden Paseos create a uniquely immersive experience
along the edges and entries of the Village. These paseos
heighten the sense of botanical bounty in Southern
California, further promoting gathering and activity.
• The Garden Strolls let residents and the public take
a break from the bustle of the village square and
streetscape. These areas are packed with shade trees
and native planting and provide space for recreation as
well as immersive seating areas throughout.
• A Fitness Loop encircles and threads through the site
with special markers to provide a continuous fitness
path for residents and neighbors.
• The Recreation Lawn is an area where the community
and their pets can gather and relax in a low -water -grass
space.
• Architectural features such as the Grand Stairs connect
outdoor open space up to the building, creating a unique
area for relaxing, meeting up with friends, or exercising.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan - August 2025
POLICY OS-2.6
Design and develop parks, greenspace, and
trail corridors to support community respite,
wellness, and the mental health benefits found
in connections to nature.
POLICY OS-2.12
Ensure that parks and recreation facilities
incorporate placemaking elements that foster
social connections and community pride such
as art, landscaping, murals, and amenities and
facilities that reflect site character and local
needs.
POLICYM-1.2 BALANCED MULTIMODAL
NETWORK
Provide a balanced and equitable multimodal
circulation network that reflects current and
changing needs.
POLICYM-5.1 ENHANCED STREET DESIGN
Improve the beauty, character, and function of
travel ways with amenities such as landscaped
parkways and medians, bike lanes, public art,
and other amenities.
As outlined in Figure 3-3, the open space plan connects
residents to one another through private open space
designations and connects the public to various restaurants,
retail and public open space areas throughout and around
the edge of the plan. With a focus on accessibility, the use
of durable materials, features and amenities encourage
community gathering for rest, relaxation and play.
Core principles for open space focus on community
experience and connectivity. Circulation of the open space
drifts across the site, anchored by an immersive garden
experience. Additionally, the plaza space is composed of
programmed nodes connected by varying types of pathways
and seating, as well as public art. The use of programming,
such as farmers markets, pop -ups and other events create
a sense of place and destination for the community at large.
Lighting, features and amenities emphasize key open spaces
within the plan and create an inviting and safe place for
people.
Chapter 3 of the Plan contains the mobility network for
the Project area. Figure 3-16 and Figure3-17 display the
pedestrian circulation network and the bicycle circulation
network respectively. The plan accommodates a variety of
transportation within and to/from the plan area, including
automobiles, walking, bikes, and rideshare. The internal
pedestrian network provides multiple access points along
Bear St. Sunflower Blvd, and S Plaza Dr.
Additionally, the plan proposes four new bike lanes through
and around the site, including the following:
• Proposed Class I bike path along Bear St.
• Proposed Class IV bike route along Sunflower Ave.
The plan will also accommodate increased bike usage by
providing three bike parking stations.
Landscaped guidelines for parkways, walkways and medians
are outline in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan. The use of public
art, materials and texture variety, plants, and greenery
adjacent to and integrated within walkways and bikeways
elevates the environment and experience. Chapter 5
encourages the use of landscaping to draw visual interest,
increase safety, bring color and shade to walking paths and
to improve the urban environment.
Appendix B: General Plan Consistency
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Environmental Findings,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) are available:
Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/supplemental-
environmental-impact-report-the-village-santa-ana-specific-plan/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Or
Southwest Senior Center
2201 W. McFadden Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) and associated appendices are available:
Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/specific-plan-the-
villaae-santa-ana/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
0
y 26-5-10 26
V Al o Al Al o Al Al wAl �R1-PRD 3 zRi-PRD
O M7
F f
MOOftE AV
Al R1-PRD
O O iio on O
f ME
R
C1II
N/A
ZONING DISTRICTS
R1 M1 GARIIAV R�
s
9F2 9WV u T
C4
Fo R 1 P
n j—
M1
R1
O O
SD5
AV ..
O C4
C1
R2-PRD
C2 C2 ~
rlirr
��rTr
1�-!2
Print D.k 11/20/24 N/A ��\
Al
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
CSM
SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST.
R2
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE
-B
PARKING MODIFICATION
C1
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
GC
GOVERNMENT CENTER
R3
MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE
-OZ
OVERLAYZONE
C1-MD
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUMDIST.
M1
LIGHTINDUSTRIAL
R4
SUBURBAN APARTMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
PRD
DEVELOPMENT
C2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
M2
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
RE
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
C4
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
O
OPENSPACE
SD
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
-HD2
HEIGHT DISTRICT II
C5
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
P
PROFESSIONAL
SP
SPECIFIC PLAN
CR
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
R1
I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
OZ1
I METRO EAST OVERLAY ZONE
Sectional District Map: 35-5-10
City of Santa Ana, California
Revised Date: October 7, 2025
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 2025-01 FOR THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W.
SUNFLOWER AVENUE, BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA AND SOUTH COAST PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines,
and declares as follows:
A. Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general
partnership ("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of
various entitlements to facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed -use urban village ("Project").
B. The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa Ana
("City"), on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear
Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11
addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661 W. Sunflower Avenue;
3820, 3840, and 3951 S. Plaza Drive; and 3811 and 3851 S. Bear Street)
and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-451-01, 412-
451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
C. The Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-01
to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6 (SP-
6)) and to approve a zone change for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project Site into
six buildable lot; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01 outlining
terms and conditions for the Project.
D. The Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site and (2) redevelopment of the Project Site into
an urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet
of commercial/retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office space,
including 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and on -site parking
and landscaping.
E. The City of Santa Ana ("City") is authorized, pursuant to Government Code
sections 65864 through 65869.5, to enter into development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 1 of 5
purpose of establishing certainty for both City and owner in the development
process.
F. Because of the logistics, magnitude of the expenditure and considerable
lead time prerequisite to planning and developing the Project, Applicant has
proposed to enter into a development agreement concerning the Project
(DA No. 2025-01) to provide assurances that the Project can proceed
without disruption caused by a change in the City's planning policies and
requirements except as provided in the DA No. 2025-01, which assurance
will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning for and
proceeding with development of the Project.
G. On August 11, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana
held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed Project and
recommended that the City Council approve an ordinance approving DA
No. 2025-01.
H. Entering into this DA No. 2025-01 would provide the City with extraordinary
and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to existing
deficiencies in public facilities, require the Property Owners to contribute a
greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and
represent benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the
development process.
The Project and the use that the Applicant propose in connection with the
Project have been extensively reviewed and considered by the City Council,
and such proposed development and use have been found to
accommodate the City's recommendations and suggestions in order to
protect the public's interest to enhance the desirability of such proposed
development and use. The terms and conditions of this DA No. 2025-01 are
fair, just and reasonable, and the City Council has concluded that the pursuit
of the Project will serve the interests of the City.
Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral
evidence presented, the City Council finds DA No. 2025-01 in the public's
interest and results in substantial community benefits because it meets and
facilitates the fulfillment of many of the City's adopted General Plan "Issues,
Goals and Policies" for each individual element, as further documented in
the Ordinance of the City Council approving AA No. 2025-01 to establish
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) and approving the zone change
from SD-48 to SP-6.
Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (Draft SEIR) that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.,
CEQA), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000
et seq., the CEQA Guidelines), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR
was made available for public review for 52 days between April 17, 2025 and June 9,
2025. The document was made available online at the City of Santa Ana website and
available for review at City Hall and the Southwest Senior Center in hard copy form. In
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 2 of 5
response to comments received on the Draft SEIR, the City prepared a Final SEIR and
released it to the public on August 4, 2025. The Final SEIR in the City Council Resolution
approving the Final SEIR is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council Resolution
recommends certification of the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087), adoption of findings
under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the
environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. The Resolution
incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in the
Resolution for the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087) as if fully set forth herein.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, hereby approves DA No. 2025-01, a true and correct copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and authorizes the City
Manager and City Clerk to execute it on behalf of the City with such non -substantive
changes as may be authorized by the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to cause DA No. 2025-01 to be recorded with the County
Recorder's Office.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall not be effective unless and until the City Council
Resolution for Final SEIR No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087), the City Council
Resolution for VTTM No. 2025-06, the City Council Ordinance for AA No. 2025-01, and
the City Council Resolution to Overrule the Orange County/John Wayne Airport Land Use
Commission's determination of inconsistency are adopted and become effective. If said
resolutions and ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any
reason, then this Ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall not be effective unless and until the City
receives a fully executed copy of DA No. 2025-01. If the fully executed copy of the DA
No. 2025-01 is not received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the approval of this
Ordinance by the City Council, then this Ordinance shall be null and void and have no
further force and effect.
Section 6. The documents and materials associated with this Ordinance that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the
custodian of records for the record of proceedings.
Section 7. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the Applicant may
protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on
this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures
established by sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code.
Section 8. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution
procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 3 of 5
procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against
the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project,
whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code
of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution,
statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal
counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 9. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption
provided the conditions precedent set forth above have been satisfied. The City Clerk
shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as
required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65868.5, within 10 days following
the entering into of the Development Agreement, as evidenced by full execution thereof,
the City Clerk shall record with the Orange County Recorder a copy of the Development
Agreement.
ADOPTED this day of 12025.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 4 of 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
/I
&A
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers:
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No.
NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
on )2025.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 5 of 5
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF:
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: )
City of Santa Ana )
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) )
Santa Ana, CA 92702 )
Attention: Clerk of the Council )
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code §27383
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2025-01
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF SANTA ANA
and
SOUTH COAST PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.2025-01
This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this IF day of,, ,
2025 by and between the City of Santa Ana, California ("City") on the one hand, and South Coast Plaza, a
California general partnership ("Owner" or "SCP"), on the other hand. City and Owner may be referred
to in this Agreement individually as a "party" or collective as the "parties."
RECITALS
A. City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or
equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section
65864, et seq. of the Government Code.
B. This Agreement constitutes a current exercise of City's police powers to provide predictability to
SCP in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use,
timing and phasing of development, and applicable ordinances consistent with the Development
Plan in exchange for SCP's commitment to provide significant public benefits to City as set forth
in Section 4 below.
C. SCP has requested that City enter into this Agreement and proceedings have been taken in
accordance with applicable State law and the rules and regulations of the City in furtherance
thereof.
D. The best interests of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and the public health, safety and
welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
E. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Agreement is of major significance
because it will provide significant economic benefit to the City through additional jobs created by
the construction and operation of the Project, property and sales tax revenue to the City,
infrastructure improvements, neighborhood revitalization, and general economic benefit.
F. The provision by SCP of the public benefits as set forth in Section 4 below allows the City to
realize significant economic, recreational, open space, educational, social, and other public
benefits to City. These public benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of Santa Ana
residents and visitors to a significantly greater extent than would development of the Property
without this Agreement.
G. The physical effects, if any, of the Project and this Agreement have been analyzed pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act as amended to date and as documented in the Final
Environmental Impact Report entitled "Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. XXXXX) and City of Santa Ana DP No.
("Project FEIR").
H. This Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Santa Ana General Plan.
I. All actions taken and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance
with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other
procedural matters.
Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits
to City, as set forth in Section 4 below, and as stated Sections 1.4 and Appendix B of the Specific
Plan and will further important policies and goals of City.
K. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development
of the Property, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and
generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Section 65864, et sec . of
the Government Code are intended.
L. On July 15, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and authorized the City's Planning
Division to draft findings and issue a determination overruling the County of Orange Airport
Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency associated with the Project and to
provide notice of same in accordance with Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code to the
County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission and the State of California Department of
Transportation's Division of Aeronautics.
M. On August 11, 2025, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement,
made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City
Council that the City Council approve this Agreement.
N. On September 16, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing introducing this Agreement and
considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and information
submitted by City staff, SCP, and members of the public. On DATE consistent with applicable
provisions of State law and the rules and regulations of the City, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. NS- finding this Agreement consistent with the City's General Plan and
approving and adopting this Agreement.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, City and Owner hereby agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.
1.1. Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement (including in the recitals
above) shall be defined as follows:
I.I.I. "Assigned Rights" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.2. "Assignment and Assumption Agreement" has the meaning set forth in Section
2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.3. "Assumed Obligations" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.4. "Agreement" means this Development Agreement.
1.1.5. "City" means the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and California municipal
corporation.
1.1.6. "City Attorney" means the City of Santa Ana City Attorney.
1.1.7. "City Council" means the duly elected city council of the City of Santa Ana.
1.1.8. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of
completing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project including, but not
limited to: grading; construction of infrastructure and other public facilities; construction of
buildings and structures; installation of landscaping consistent with this Agreement.
"Development" does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of
any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof.
1.1.9. "Development Impact Fee" means a monetary exaction other than a tax or
special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general
applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local
agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but
does not include fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or
approvals.
1.1.10. "Development Plan" means the plan for development of the Property pursuant to
the Project Approvals as set forth in Exhibit "C."
1.1.11. "Development Project Review Approvals" refers to the administrative review of
all projects meeting the requirements of Division 3 of Article V of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code as may be required by the Project Approvals.
1.1.12. "Discretionary Action" or "Discretionary Approval" means an action that
requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or discretion on the part of the City, including
any board, agency, commission, or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the
process of approving or disapproving Development of the Project, as distinguished from an
activity that is defined herein as a Ministerial Permit or Ministerial Approval (i.e., Development
Project Review Approvals).
1.1.13. "Effective Date" means the date the ordinance approving and authorizing this
Agreement becomes effective.
1.1.14. "Executive Director" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.15. "Existing Land Use Regulations" means the Land Use Regulations that are in
effect on the Effective Date, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866.
1.1.16. "Existing Project Approvals" means all Project Approvals approved or issued
on or before the Effective Date.
1.1.17. "Future Project Approvals" means Project Approvals for the Project that are
adopted, approved, or issued after the Effective Date.
1.1.18. "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, laws, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other actions of City, including but not limited
to the provisions set forth in the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, that affect, govern, or
apply to the Development of the Project and use of the Property in a manner consistent with this
Agreement, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of
use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the
Property, subject to the terms of this Agreement, whether adopted by the City Council or the
voters in an initiative. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any City ordinance, resolution,
code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) taxes (special or general) and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and
interests that provide for the use or the entry upon public property;
(e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.1.19. "Owner" means the persons and entities listed as Owner on page 1 of this
Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.
1.1.20. "Ministerial Approval," or "Ministerial Act" means the nondiscretionary permits,
plans, inspections, certificates, documents and licenses required to be taken, issued, or approved
by the City in order for Owner to develop the Project, including, without limitation, building
permits, grading permits, Development Project Review Approvals, and other similar permits and
approvals. Any approval or act that is not a Discretionary Approval is a Ministerial Approval.
1.1.21. "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of
trust or any other security -device lender, and their successors and assigns.
1.1.22. "Project" means the development of the Property, as more specifically described
in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B," pursuant to the Project Approvals and the
Development Plan, as such Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced, or modified
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
1.1.23. "Project Open Space" means the approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible
open -space areas, as defined in the Specific Plan, to be maintained by Owner.
1.1.24. "Project Phase" shall mean a portion of the development of the Property as
contemplated by the Project Approvals. To avoid confusion, a "Project Phase" may include one
or more Development phases and shall not be limited to any single Specific Plan Phase and may
consist of a portion of a Specific Plan Phase.
1.1.25. "Project Approvals" means all site -specific (meaning specifically applicable to
the Project only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within the City)
plans, maps, permits, entitlements, approvals (including Development Project Review
Approvals), and entitlements of every kind and nature that are sought or agreed to in writing by
Owner in its sole and absolute discretion for Development of the Project and that are approved
by the City. Project Approvals include, but are not limited to, general plan amendments, specific
plan approvals or amendments, site plans, development project review approvals, tentative and
final subdivision maps, design guidelines, variances, zoning designations, conditional use
permits, grading, building, and other similar permits, the site -specific provisions of general
plans, environmental assessments, including environmental impact reports and negative
declarations. A list of the Project Approvals is set forth in Exhibit "C."
1.1.26. "Property" means the real property described in Exhibit "A" and shown in
Exhibit `B" to this Agreement. The Property is approximately 17.2 gross acres in size and is
occupied by the South Coast Plaza Village commercial development as of the Effective Date. It
is composed of seven parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-
131-21, 412-451-01, 412-451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04.
1.1.27. "Public Benefit" refers to those benefits provided to the City and the community
by Owner pursuant to Section 4 below.
1.1.28. "Reservation of Rights" means the rights and authority excepted from the
assurances and rights provided to Owner under this Agreement and reserved to City under
Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.1.29. "Specific Plan Phase" means any one of the five phases as shown on Figure 6-1
(Conceptual Phasing Plan) of the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan.
1.1.30. "Term" has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.4.1 below.
1.2. Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of,
this Agreement:
Exhibit "A" — Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit "B" — Map showing Property and its location
Exhibit "C" — Development Plan and list of Project Approvals
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
2.1. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement.
Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the
terms of the Development Plan, the Project Approvals, and this Agreement. This Agreement
shall be recorded against the Property.
2.2. Ownership of Property. Owner represents and covenants that it is the Owner of the fee
simple title to, or has an equitable interest in, the Property or a portion thereof.
2.3. City Council Findings. The City Council finds that:
2.3.1. This Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan.
2.3.2. This Agreement ensures a desirable and functional community environment,
provides effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
appropriate for the development of the Project, and enhances effective utilization of resources
within the City.
2.3.3. This Agreement provides public benefits beyond those that are necessary to
mitigate the development of the Project, as set forth in Section 4 below.
2.3.4. This Agreement strengthens the public planning process, encourages private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reduces costs of development and government.
2.3.5. The best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety, and
welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
2.4. Term.
2.4.1. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years thereafter (the "Initial Term"), unless modified
or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Together, the Initial Term and any
extension under this Agreement shall constitute the "Term." The Term, including all possible
extensions, shall not exceed twenty -five -years unless this Agreement is amended to allow further
extensions. Owner shall execute this Agreement which shall be recorded against the Property no
later than ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -executed, recordable Agreement
from the City.
(a) It is anticipated that Parties will sign the Development Agreement upon
approval of the Agreement by the City Council. Owner shall cause this Agreement to be timely
recorded against the Property no later than ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -
executed, recordable Agreement from the City.
(b) Failure of Owner to record this Agreement against the Property within
ten (10) days following the receipt of the fully -executed, recordable Agreement from the City
shall constitute an event of default by Owner under this Agreement.
2.4.2. The Initial Term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended by up to five
(5) years if Owner achieves the following milestones: construction has commenced on: (i) no
less than 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor area; and (ii) 360 residential dwelling
units.
2.4.3. If Owner fails to satisfy the prerequisites to securing the automatic extension, the
City Council may nonetheless elect, in its sole discretion, to grant one or more extensions if
Owner provides the City with a plan that includes a Development timeline and specific
Development milestones.
2.4.4. When the Term ends, Owner shall have no vested right under this Agreement,
regardless of whether or not Owner has paid City any Development Impact Fee.
2.4.5. If any party other than Owner initiates litigation that challenges the Project, this
Agreement (and/or the ordinance approving this Agreement), or any of the Existing Project
Approvals, the Owner will have the right to toll commencement of the Term, except for the duty
to record this Agreement within ten (10) days of receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City, and any obligations of Owner under this Agreement during the period
of such litigation. The tolling shall commence upon receipt by the City of written notice from
Owner invoking this right to tolling. The tolling shall terminate when the action, including any
appeal, is finally resolved, whether by entry of a final, non -appealable judgment that upholds the
Project and the Existing Project Approvals or voluntary or involuntary dismissal of the entire
action (and the passage of time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal) by the moving party.
Owner shall similarly have the right to toll commencement of the Term, except for the duty to
record this Agreement within ten (10) days of receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City, and any obligations of Owner under the Agreement in the event a
referendum petition challenging the Project, the ordinance approving this Agreement, or any of
the Project Approvals is submitted to the City Clerk. The tolling shall terminate if and when: (1)
the City Clerk determines the referendum petition did not receive sufficient signatures to qualify
for the ballot; or (2) the election results of the referendum uphold the Project and the Existing
Project Approvals and are certified by the City Council. This Agreement shall be null and of no
further force and effect in the event that the City Council rescinds the challenged action.
2.5. Assignment.
2.5.1. Right to Sell, Transfer, or Assign. Owner shall have the right, from time to time,
to sell, transfer, or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer
shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person,
partnership, joint venture, firm, limited liability company, or corporation and, in connection
therewith, to assign its rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part, to said person,
partnership, joint venture, firm, limited liability company (collectively, the "Assigned Rights")
at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or
assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations
arising under or from this Agreement that pertain to the Project Phase[s] that is the subject of
such transfer, and be made in compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement (in whole or in part) shall be made unless made together with the transfer of all or a
part of the Property, to which such rights or interests apply.
(b) In connection with any such assignment of an Owner's rights and
obligations under this Agreement (in whole or in part), Owner shall notify City in writing at least
sixty (60 days) in advance of any sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide City with a draft
assignment and assumption agreement ("Assignment and Assumption Agreement"), in a form
reasonably satisfactory to City, to be entered into by Owner, such assignee, and the City, pursuant
to the terms of which such assignee shall expressly and unconditionally assume those duties,
obligations, agreements, covenants, and waivers of Owner under this Agreement that are
applicable to the Project Phase that is the subject of the portion of the Property, as applicable,
being transferred, including, without limitation, the covenants not to sue and waivers contained in
Sections 7.3.1 and 9.5.1 hereof (collectively, the "Assumed Obligations"). Notwithstanding the
failure of any assignee to execute the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, as required by
Section 2.5.1(b) above, the burdens of this Agreement (as they relate to the Project Phase that is
the subject of the Property being transferred) shall be binding upon such transferee, but the
benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such transferee unless the Assignment and
Assumption Agreement is executed.
(c) The Executive Director for the Planning and Building Agency (the
"Executive Director") shall have the administrative authority to approve of the Assignment and
Assumption Agreement and to determine whether Owner has complied with the above
conditions, which approval and determination shall not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned.
The Executive Director shall use best efforts to approve of the Assignment and Assumption
Agreement and to determine whether the Owner has complied with the above conditions within
five (5) business days following receipt of Owner's written request. The Executive Director's
failure to approve or disapprove the foregoing within thirty (30) days following the Executive
Directors receipt of Owner's written request shall constitute City's approval of the same.
2.5.2. No Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or
assignment as provided in any Assignment and Assumption Agreement delivered in accordance
with the provisions of Section 2.5.1 above, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated to
comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement (and such transferring
Owner shall not be released from any of such obligations) with respect to the transferred
Property, or any transferred portion thereof, as applicable, and following any such transfer the
transferring Owner and the transferee under the Assignment and Assumption Agreement shall be
jointly and severally liable with respect to all of the obligations assumed by such transferee
under such Assignment and Assumption Agreement.
2.6. Administrative Changes and Modifications.
2.6.1. Owner and City acknowledge that further planning and development of the
Project may demonstrate that refinements and changes are appropriate with respect to the details
and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain
degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Project development and with respect to
those items covered in general terms under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Existing
Land Use Regulations, and, once issued, any Future Project Approvals.
2.6.2. If and when the parties find that "Substantially Conforming Changes," as herein
defined, are necessary, desirable or appropriate, they may, unless otherwise required by law,
effectuate such changes or adjustments through an administrative operating memorandum that is
executed by Owner and the Executive Director of the City's Planning and Building Agency or
the Director's designee. As used herein, a "Substantially Conforming Change" is a minor
change, modification, or adjustment that is deemed to be in substantial conformance with the
Development Plan at the City's sole and absolute discretion. The following are excluded from
the definition of "Substantially Conforming Changes": (1) changes to the In -Lieu Fee; and (2)
changes to the Project Open Space. A Substantially Conforming Change is not considered an
amendment to this Agreement or to Development Plan and so does not require prior notice or
hearing by the Planning Commission or City Council.
2.7. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Except for Substantially Conforming
Changes as defined by Section 2.6.2 above, this Agreement may be amended or modified from
time to time only with the written consent of Owner and the City or their successors and assigns,
and only upon approval of an amendment by the City Council after a public hearing in
accordance with Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not limit any remedy of
City or Owner as provided by this Agreement.
2.8. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon
the occurrence of any of the following events:
2.8.1. Expiration of the stated Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4,
including any extension(s).
2.8.2. Entry of a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction setting aside,
voiding, or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement and/or any Project
Approvals as set forth in Exhibit C.
2.8.3. The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the ordinance
approving this Agreement and/or any Project Approvals. In the event a referendum petition
challenging the ordinance approving this Agreement and/or any Project Approvals is submitted
to the City Clerk, Owner shall deposit with the City Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) ("Petition
Deposit") to cover the actual cost incurred by the City examining the petition and verifying
signatures. Should the referendum qualify for the ballot, Owner may request, at or prior to the
Council meeting at which the Council will take up the referendum issue, that the City Council
repeal the ordinance and/or any Project Approvals rather than submitting it to the voters. If
Owner does not request that the City Council repeal the ordinance and/or any Project Approvals
and the City Council submits the referendum to the voters, Owner shall deposit Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) ("Referendum Deposit") with the City. City may use the Referendum Deposit
to pay any and all costs associated with the said referendum measure (e.g., legal fees for outside
counsel). Any funds remaining in the Petition Deposit may be put toward the Referendum
Deposit at the Owner's request. If at any time the Referendum Deposit account has Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or less remaining, Owner shall, within three (3) business days of
receiving notice from the City, deposit with the City Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)
as requested by the City to cover necessary costs and expenses associated with the referendum
and holding the related election. Following certification of the election results, any funds
remaining in the Petition Deposit or the Referendum Deposit account shall be returned to the
Owner within thirty (30) days of certification of the election results. In the event Owner
requests that the City Council repeal the ordinance and the City Council nonetheless determines
to submit the ordinance to the voters, Owner shall have no financial responsibility for the costs
associated with holding the election, including any obligation to make a Referendum Deposit.
2.8.4. Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, which
is hereby defined to be: (i) issuance by the City of all required occupancy permits and final
approvals for occupancy for the Project's 1,583 multi -family residential units, 80,000 square
feet of commercial uses, and 300,000 square feet of office space. (ii) acceptance by City or
applicable public agency of all required dedications in connection with same; and (iii) written
notification by City to Owner that the Project is complete.
2.8.5. Termination of the Agreement as provided under this Agreement, including but
not limited to Section 7.4 herein, shall not constitute termination of any other Project Approvals.
Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation
hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such
termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement
that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations that are specifically
set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any Development Impact Fees
paid by Owner to City on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to Owner by
City.
2.9. Notices.
2.9.1. As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the
communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent,
waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder.
2.9.2. All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when
delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the
return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and
addressed to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:
If to City:
City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
PO Box 1988 M-30
Santa Ana, Ca 82702
Copies to:
City Manager
City Attorney
Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
If to Owner:
Justin McCusker
C.J. Segerstrom and Sons
3315 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
McCuskerJ@southcoastplaza.com
Copies to:
Spencer Kallick
Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory, & Natsis, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
skallick@allenmatkins.com
2.9.3. Either party may, by written notice given at any time, require subsequent notices
to be given to another person or entity, whether a parry or an officer or representative of a parry,
or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall
not be invalidated by the change.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
3.1. Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including the Reservation of
Rights in Section 3.3 below, Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in
accordance with, and to the extent of, this Agreement, and the Project Approvals, and the
Development Plan for the duration of the Term. Owner may proceed with demolition permits
prior to pulling building permits provided Owner has provided proof of financing for that portion
of the Project that demolition permits are being sought for. From the commencement of
demolition until issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Owner shall ensure that the Property is
secured and that all construction walls are maintained in a good condition and repair with no
graffiti.
3.1.1. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, the Project shall remain subject to
all Existing Land Use Regulations and Project Approvals for the Term. Except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, and notwithstanding the authority of the City to further revise the
Land Use Regulations pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, the permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings,
and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth
in the Existing Land Use Regulations and Project Approvals.
3.1.2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any subdivision map
approved which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i)
the Term of this Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6.
3.1.3. Owner shall comply with all mitigation measures required to be undertaken
pursuant to any document prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act with respect to the Project.
3.1.4. Notwithstanding Section 3.1.1 above, Owner acknowledges and agrees that the
Project requires additional Project Approvals (the Future Project Approvals identified in Section
1.1.17). These Future Project Approvals shall be consistent with the Existing Project Approvals
and this Agreement as to the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the
maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication
of land for public purposes; however, the Future Project Approvals may include additional
conditions that are lawful and appropriate to the type of Project Approval.
3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the
terms of this Agreement, including the Reservation of Rights in Section 3.3 below, the rules,
regulations and official policies governing, inter alia, permitted uses and Development of the
Property, the density and intensity of use and of the Property, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to development of the Property, shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations and
Project Approvals. In connection with any subsequent Project Approvals and except as
specifically provided otherwise herein, City may exercise its discretion as set forth in Section
3.3.2.
3.2.1. City shall reasonably strive to complete:
(a) its initial review of individual development projects within 30 days after
the application is deemed complete,
(b) any second plan review within 15 days after submission, and
(c) any third plan review within 10 days after submission.
3.2.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City does not guarantee that the timelines
above will be met, and failure to meet these timelines does not constitute a default.
3.2.3. To help ensure expedited review of its development approvals, Owner may elect
to pay for City to use a contract planner. City agrees to retain a contract planner to expedite
review, if Owner so elects.
3.3. Reservation of Rights.
3.3.1. Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Agreement, the following are not Existing Land Use Regulations, but shall apply to the
development of the Property as they are in effect at the time of application for Development
Project Review Approvals, provided such regulations and/or fees (as applicable) are not
designed in a manner such that they are applicable only, to the Project and/or Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by City to
cover the actual costs to City of processing applications for Project Approvals or for monitoring
compliance with any Project Approvals granted or issued.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications,
notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of
procedure, provided that such procedural regulations do not conflict with the Project Approvals.
(c) Regulations, policies, and rules governing engineering and construction
standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including, without
limitation, all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes
adopted by the City, including, without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code,
Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and Grading Ordinance.
(d) Regulations that are in material conflict with this Agreement but that are
reasonably necessary to protect the residents of the Project or the immediate community from a
condition perilous to their health or safety. To the maximum extent possible, any such regulations
shall be applied and construed so as to provide Owner with the rights and assurances provided
under this Agreement.
(e) Regulations that are not in material conflict with this Agreement or the
Development Plan. For avoidance of doubt, any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or
otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to
materially conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the
development of the Property.
(f) Regulations that are in material conflict with the Development Plan;
provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to Development
of the Property.
(g) Regulations that impose, levy, alter or amend fees, or charges relating to
consumers or end users, including, without limitation, trash can placement, service charges and
limitations on vehicle parking.
(h) Regulations of other public agencies, including Development Impact
Fees adopted or imposed by such other public agencies, although collected by City.
3.3.2. Subsequent Project Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent City from
exercising its rights under Government Code Section 65866 when acting on subsequent Project
Approvals provided that such City actions do not materially conflict with this Agreement, the
Development Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations, and/or the Project Approvals.
3.3.3. Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State,
County or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement,
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply
with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations
and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to
enforce.
3.3.4. Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to
limit certain aspects of its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations,
reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power that cannot be
or are not expressly so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if
necessary, to reserve to City all such power and authority that cannot be or is not by this
Agreement's express terms so restricted.
3.4. Regulation by Other Public Agencies. n�. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public
agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the
development of the Property separately from or jointly with City and this Agreement does not
limit the authority of such other public agencies.
3.5. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee
Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that
case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the
timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the specific intent of the parties
to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the parties acknowledge and
provide that Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such
order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub -phases as Owner
deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment, except for the following:
3.5.1. No building permits for residential units shall be issued in excess of 360
residential units unless and until Owner obtains building permits for at least 50,000 square feet
of commercial development. Owner may construct commercial square footage beyond 50,000
square feet if and when such additional commercial development is supported by market
conditions, as determined by Owner in its sole discretion. Owner understands that commercial
development is a priority to the City and agrees to exercise its discretion in good faith.
3.6. Moratoria. Except as specifically set forth in this section, City agrees that to the extent
permitted by law, no moratorium or other similar limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing,
or sequencing of the development of the Project or any part thereof and whether or not enacted by
local initiative or otherwise) affecting subdivision maps, grading or building permits, occupancy
certificates, or other entitlements approved, issued, or granted within the City, after the Effective
Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the
provisions hereof shall not preclude the application to the Project of a moratorium or other similar
limitation (of the type described in the preceding sentence) enacted in order to protect an
imminent threat to the public health or safety.
3.7. Development Agreement/Project Approvals. In the event of any inconsistency between
any Existing Land Use Regulation and a Project Approval, the provisions of the Project Approval
shall control. In the event of any inconsistency between any Existing Land Use Regulation or
Project Approval and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
4. PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SAFETY BENEFITS.
4.1. Public Benefits. The Project is expected to bring significant fiscal benefits to the City.
The Project will also serve to implement the City's General Plan vision for the Property, which
has long been designated as a District Center where intense mixed -use development is
encouraged. In addition, Owner has committed by this Agreement to contribute the public and
community safety benefits, as provided below.
4.2. Community Benefits.
4.2.1. Project Community Benefit Package. The Project will provide significant
economic benefit to the City through additional jobs created by the construction and operation of
the Project, property and sales tax revenue to the City, infrastructure improvements,
neighborhood revitalization, and general economic benefit. In addition, Owner has agreed to
provide the City with a Nine Million Three Hundred Thousand dollar ($9,300,000) payment
("Community Benefit Payment"), which Community Benefit Payment shall be allocated at the
City's sole discretion. The Community Benefit Payment shall be paid to City by Owner pursuant
to the following schedule: (1) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($2,500,000) prior to
or concurrent with the issuance of the first demolition permit in furtherance of the Project's first
Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 1"); (2) Three Million Six Hundred
Thousand dollars ($3,600,000) concurrent with the issuance of the first building permit in
furtherance of the Project's second Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 2");
(3) One Million Three Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,300,000) concurrent with the issuance of
the first building permit in furtherance of the Project's third Specific Plan Phase ("Community
Benefit Payment No. 3"); and (4) One Million Nine Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,900,000)
concurrent with the issuance of the first building permit in furtherance of the Project's fourth
Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 4"). If the City has not received
Community Benefit Payment No. 2 on or before the date that is 36 months and one day from the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the first Specific Plan Phase, then Community
Benefit Payment No. 2 shall accrue simple interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum until
such time as it is paid to the City. If the City has not received Community Benefit Payment No.
3 on or before the date that is 36 months and one day from the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the second Specific Plan Phase, then Community Benefit No. 3 shall accrue
simple interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum until such time as it is paid to the City. If
the City has not received Community Benefit Payment No. 4 on or before the date that is 36
months and one date from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the third Specific
Plan Phase, then Community Benefit No. 4 shall accrue simple interest at a rate of five percent
(5%) per annum until such time as it is paid to the City. Developer may commence construction
of the Specific Plan Phases in any order. Notwithstanding the Specific Plan Phase order,
Community Benefit Payment No. 1 shall be paid prior to or concurrent with the issuance of the
first demolition permit in furtherance of any Specific Plan Phase.
4.2.2. Project Open Space. In accordance with the Specific Plan, Owner shall
construct, own, and maintain the Project Open Space.
(a) Owner shall design the Project Open Space to promote biodiversity,
extend thermal comfort, and to promote biophilic design, health, and wellness.
(b) Owner shall provide a total minimum of two (2) free on -site events per
year for the general public (e.g., concerts or farmers markets) including programming on
sustainability and wellness, subject to Force Majeure events, as follows: a minimum of two (2)
free events per year shall be provided commencing one year after the completion of Specific Plan
Phase One as set forth in section 6.3.10 of the Specific Plan. Owner's obligation under this
Section shall terminate after 25 years after the commencement of the first free on -site event or
upon termination of this Agreement whichever occurs later.
(c) Owner shall record one or more open space easements against the
Property for the benefit of the City concurrent with the recordation of the subdivision maps that
implement a given Project Phase or Development phase, as contemplated by the Project
Approvals.
(d) City shall provide Owner a credit against its park and open space fee
obligations (e.g., Park Acquisition and Development Fee) for the hard and soft cost of all land,
improvements, construction, operation, and maintenance associated with the Project Open Space.
In the event the Project Open Space is less than 7.5 acres, Owner must satisfy any required park
and recreation fees or other obligations (including those specified in Chapter 35, Article IV of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code) for the amount of the acreage shortfall as calculated by the City.
4.2.3. Construction Standards.
(a) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The Project
shall be constructed to a minimum LEED Silver standard, as established by the U.S. Green
Building Council.
(b) Water Conservation. The Project shall include high -efficiency irrigation,
native drought -tolerant plantings, low -flow plumbing fixtures, and Energy Star equipment and
appliances.
(c) Electric Vehicle ("EV") Parking. No less than 5% of all structured
parking stalls in the Project shall be equipped with EV chargers. No less than 10% of all parking
stalls located within the parking structures shall be EV ready with sufficient electrical
infrastructure to enable the future installation of EV conduit and chargers.
(d) Signage Program. Owner shall implement a signage program to promote
mass transit, provide ride -share infrastructure & bike/e-mobility facilities.
(e) Electrical Appliances: All individual residential units within the Project
shall utilize electric or induction stoves, ovens, and clothing dryers. This obligation shall not
apply to commercial, common area, or other non-residential uses.
(f) Photovoltaic Panels: The Project shall incorporate photovoltaic panels on
all residential components of the Project
5. HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE.
5.1. Owner Exemption. During the Term of this Agreement, as such Term may be extended,
Consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1903(a), Owner is exempt from Santa Ana
Municipal Code Article XVIII.I inclusionary housing requirements (i.e., the Affordable Housing
and Opportunity Ordinance) because Owner is entering into this Agreement. In lieu of
compliance with Article XVIII.I, Owner commits to the In -Lieu Fee as set forth in Section 5.1.1,
below, which may be paid at the time of building permit issuance for each market rate residential
unit contemplated by a given building permit or in the aggregate, at Owner's sole discretion. In -
Lieu fees paid in excess of the requirements for a particular building permit may be accrued and
used by Owner to satisfy future in lieu fee requirements. Upon expiration or termination of this
Agreement, Owner shall be subject to Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XVIII.I for any unit that
has not received a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.1.1. In -Lieu Fee. Owner shall make an in -lieu fee payment at the time of building
permit issuance for each market rate residential unit contemplated by the building permit equal
to five dollars ($5.00) per habitable square foot of each market rate residential unit.
6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
6.1. Periodic Review.
6.1.1. The City shall review this Agreement annually, on or before DATE , and
annually thereafter until the expiration of this Agreement, in order to ascertain the compliance
by Owner with the terms of this Agreement ("Annual Review"). Owner shall timely submit an
Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the City Manager on or before the first
anniversary of the Effective Date and annually thereafter until the expiration of this Agreement.
If the Annual Review is not submitted within thirty (30) days after written notice from the City
Manager, then Owner shall be in breach of this Agreement. The failure of the City to conduct the
Annual Review shall not constitute a default by Owner. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be
accompanied by an "Annual Review and Administration Fee" sufficient to defray the estimated
costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of
the Annual Review and Administration Fee" shall be set annually by resolution of the City
Council.
6.1.2. The Annual Review shall include a progress report on the status of the
implementation of the Project and the new tax revenue generated by the Project, including, but
not limited to, the following:
(a) Development and construction progress of the following uses and Project
components:
(i)
Site development
(ii)
Public infrastructure,
(iii)
Project design features,
(iv)
Community benefits,
(v)
Plaza,
(vi)
Residential,
(vii)
Commercial,
(viii)
Office
(ix)
Parking
(x)
Philanthropic activities (education, culture, arts)
(b) Reporting for items listed in Section 6.1.2(a) shall be include a table
substantially similar to the following:
An example of a compliance report for site development and can be applied to other above criteria and metrics.
Reporting Period: 2026 —1st Report
Year 1 of 20 of Agreement
Use
Approved
Total
Cumulative
Remaining to
Status & Look Ahead
SF/Units/Rooms
Completed In
Total
Be
Period
Completed
Completed
Residential
1,583
100
200
1,383
On target with 300 to be
completed in the next period
Commercial
380,000
150,000
150,000
230,000
150k completed for Tenant X.
New
20-Year lease.
Retail
80,000
50,000
50,000
30,000
Negotiating with Tenant Y for a
Office
300,000
100,000
100,000
200,000
15 year lease.
(c) Progress relative to economic projections of
(i)
Increases in property tax,
(ii)
Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF received by the City,
(iii)
Sales tax received from the Project,
(iv)
Business tax received from the Project,
(v) Utility User Tax received from the Project,
(d) Reporting for items listed in Section 6.1.2(c) shall be include a table,
prepared by Owner with City's cooperation, substantially similar to the following:
Reporting Period: 2026 —
Year 1 of 20 of Agreement
Revenue
Total for Period
Cumulative to
Percentage
Status & Look Ahead
date
increase over
2018 Base
Year
Property Tax
Property Tax
In -Lieu of
VLF
Sales Tax
Business
Tax
Franchise
Tax
UUT
6.2. Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this
Agreement at any time commencing one year following the issuance of the Project's first building
permit, but not more than once during any 12-month period. The City Manager, or his or her
designee, shall conduct such special reviews.
6.3. Review Procedure.
6.3.1. During either an Annual Review or a special review, Owner shall be required to
demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The burden of proof on
this issue shall be on Owner.
6.3.2. Upon completion of an Annual Review or a special review, the City Manager,
or the City Manager's designee, shall submit a receive and file report to the Planning
Commission if he or she finds that Owner is in good -faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. If the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, finds on the basis of
reasonable evidence that Owner is not in good -faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, he or she shall set the matter for hearing before the Planning Commission and shall
submit a report setting forth said evidence concerning compliance by Owner with the terms of
this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.
6.3.3. If the Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence that
Owner is in good -faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement, it shall confirm same and
formally conclude the review by resolution. If the Planning Commission finds and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement:
(a) The Planning Commission shall provide written notice to Owner of such
findings setting forth the nature of the problem and the actions, if any, required of Owner to cure
such problem.
(b) If the problem can be cured and Owner fails to take such actions and cure
such problem within sixty (60) days after of the effective date of the Planning Commission's
notice or, in the event that such problem cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but
can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such
problem within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and
cure such problem, then the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council
modification or termination of this Agreement.
(c) Owner may appeal a Planning Commission determination pursuant to
this Section 6.3.3 pursuant to City's rules for consideration of appeals in zoning matters then in
effect. If a Planning Commission determination is appealed, any cure ordered by the Planning
Commission shall be tolled until a decision is reached by the City Council on the appeal. Notice
of default as provided under Section 7 of this Agreement shall be given to such Owner prior to or
concurrent with proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
6.4. Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3,
City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, City shall give
written notice to Owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten (10)
calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
6.4.1. The time and place of the hearing;
6.4.2. A statement as to whether or not City proposes to terminate or to modify this
Agreement; and,
6.4.3. Such other information that the City considers necessary to inform Owner of the
nature of the proceeding.
6.5. Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on
modification or termination, Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Owner shall be
required to demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner. If the City Council finds, based upon
substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of
this Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or, in lieu of termination and
with the consent of Owner, modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably
necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
6.6. Certificate of Agreement Compliance.
6.6.1. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, Owner is found to be in
compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by Owner, issue a Certificate of
Agreement Compliance ("Certificate") to Owner stating that after the most recent Periodic or
Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and
City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect; and (2) Owner is not in default. The
Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate
constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is
issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement
of the next Periodic Review. Owner may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.
6.6.2. Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or
Owner, City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or
Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City Manager or City
Council.
6.7. Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed as conditions of any
discretionary approval received through the City's existing regulatory process shall be
governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no event shall such conditions be affected
by the termination, cancellation, rescission, revocation, or default or expiration of this
Development Agreement (although such conditions must comply with the Applicable Rules).
7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
7.1. Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that City and Owner would not
have entered into this Agreement if either party were to be liable in damages arising out of a
breach or default under this Agreement and, therefore, each of the parties hereto hereby
acknowledge and agree that the sole remedies that either party hereto may pursue and enforce
against the other arising out of a default or breach under this Agreement by the other party (and
the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods) shall be an action for specific
performance or a termination of this Agreement by such non -defaulting parry's obligations under
this Agreement (subject to the terms and provisions of Section 6.3.3), and each party hereto
expressly waives any other remedy they might otherwise be entitled to pursue, at law or in equity,
against the other, and each party hereto expressly waives any right to sue the other for damages or
claim any damages.
7.2. Release.
7.2.1. Except for specific performance, Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees,
hereby releases City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands,
actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. Owner
hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which is set forth below:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST
IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND
THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED
HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.."
By initialing below, Owner hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection
with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases.
Owner's Initials
7.2.2. Except for specific performance, City, for itself, its successors and assignees,
hereby releases Owner, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands,
actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. City
hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which is set forth below:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST
IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND
THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED
HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.."
By initialing below, City hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection
with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases.
City's Initials
7.3. Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of an Owner. City may terminate
or modify this Agreement for any failure of Owner to perform any material duty or obligation of
Owner under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as "default"); provided, however, City may terminate or modify this
Agreement pursuant to this Section 7.3 only after providing written notice to Owner of default
setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Owner to cure such
default and, where the default can be cured Owner has failed to take such actions and cure such
default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such
default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time,
has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day
period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.
7.3.1. No Cross Default. Parties agree and acknowledges that, notwithstanding anything
stated to the contrary in this Agreement: (a) the failure of SCP to comply with or satisfy any of
SCP's obligations under this Agreement shall not limit or impair a transferee's rights and benefits
under this Agreement with respect to its Assigned Rights (as they apply to the Project Phase
owned by such transferee) under Section 2.5.1 of this Agreement and (b) the failure of any
transferee to satisfy such transferee's Assumed Obligations as provided for under Section 2.5.1 of
this Agreement shall not, as to the Project Phase to which those Assumed Obligations apply,
limit or impair any of the Assigned Rights of any other transferee as to the Project Phase owned
by such other transferee.
7.4. Voluntary Termination of Agreement by SCP. In the event SCP determines, in its sole
discretion, prior to issuance of the first demolition permit implementing the first Specific Plan
Phase, that it no longer wishes to proceed with the Project pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, SCP may terminate this Agreement by providing the City with 30 days written
notice. Notwithstanding this or other provisions herein, SCP's indemnity and defense obligations
shall survive such termination for the later of twelve (12) months or expiration of the statute of
limitations on any and all potential causes of action against the City as set forth in Section 8 of
this Agreement.
7.5. Notice and Cure Rights. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this
Agreement, City shall have no right to terminate any of the rights of any Owner under this
Agreement unless such Owner has failed to cure any default under this Agreement giving rise to
any such termination right within the cure periods expressly provided for above in this Section 7.
8. LITIGATION
8.1. Third-PartLitigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense,
including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees
from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, any document prepared for the Project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or the approval of any permit or
entitlement granted pursuant to this Agreement for the Project. City shall promptly notify Owner
of any claim, action, proceeding or determination included within this Section 8.1 no later than
fourteen (14) business days and City's receipt of service of process and City shall cooperate in the
defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, proceeding or
determination as required by this Section, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall
not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City as to that claim, action,
proceeding, or determination. City may in its discretion participate in the defense.
8.2. Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and
employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of
Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors,
assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance
or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the
Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend,
at its expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action
based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in
the defense.
8.3. Reservation of Rights. With respect to Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 herein, City reserves,
the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) that the indemnifying party selects, hires or
otherwise engages to defend the indemnified party hereunder, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed; or (2) conduct its own defense; provided,
however, that the indemnifying party shall reimburse the indemnified party forthwith for any and
all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys' fees, upon billing and
accounting therefor.
8.4. Challenge to Existing Land Use Approvals. By accepting the benefits of this Agreement,
Owner, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, hereby expressly agrees and covenants
not to sue or otherwise challenge any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of
the Effective Date. Such agreement and covenant includes, without limitation, the covenant
against any direct suit by Owner or its successor in interest, or any participation, encouragement
or involvement whatsoever that is adverse to City by Owner or its successor in interest, other than
as part of required response to lawful orders of a court or other body of competent jurisdiction.
Owner hereby expressly waives, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, any claim or
challenge to any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date.
8.5. Survival. The provisions of Sections 8.1 and 8.2 shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
9.1. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any
manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any
improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing
with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may
require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time
to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any
such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is
consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. In furtherance of the foregoing, and
notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Agreement, any Mortgagee of the Property
shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
9.1.1. Default under Agreement Does Not Impair Lien of any Mortgage. Neither
entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid,
diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value,
unless otherwise required by law.
9.1.2. Request for Notices of Default by Mortgagee. The Mortgagee of any mortgage
or deed of trust encumbering the Property or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a
request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled
to receive written notification from City of any default by the applicable Owner in the
performance of such Owner's obligations under this Agreement.
9.1.3. If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any
notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of
that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The
Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining
cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
9.1.4. Lender Protection Provisions.
(a) Notices to Mortgagees; Mortgagee's Right to Cure.
(i) Notices to Mortgagees. City shall send to each Mortgagee which
has provided City written notice of its name and address, in the manner provided by Section 9.1
above, a true, correct and complete copy of any written notice sent to Owner of a default by Owner
under this Agreement at the same time as and whenever any such notice of default shall be given
by City to Owner, addressed to such Mortgagee at the address last furnished to City by such
Mortgagee. Owner irrevocably directs that City accept, and City agrees to accept, performance
and compliance by any such Mortgagee of and with any term, covenant, agreement, provision,
condition or limitation on Owner's, part to be kept, observed or performed hereunder with the same
force and effect as though kept, observed or performed by Owner provided that such performance
and/or compliance is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.1.4 below.
(ii) Mortgagee's Right to Cure. Notwithstanding anything stated to
the contrary in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be terminated as to any Project Phase
because of a default or breach hereunder on the part of Owner until and unless:
(1) written notice of any such default or breach has been delivered
to Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.1.4(a)(i) above,
(2) with respect to a default or breach that is curable solely by the
payment of money, Mortgagee, Owner have failed to cure such default or breach within thirty
(30) days following the expiration of any of Owner's notice and cure periods set forth herein,
and
(3) with respect to a default or breach that is not curable solely by
the payment of money, Mortgagee, Owner have failed to cure such default or breach within
ninety (90) days following the expiration of any of Owner's notice and cure periods set forth
herein or, if such default or breach is curable but cannot be cured within such time period, (i)
Mortgagee has failed to notify City within such ninety (90) day time period that Mortgagee
intends to cure such default or breach, (ii) Mortgagee fails to commence to cure such default or
breach within such ninety (90) day period, or (iii) Mortgagee fails to diligently prosecute such
cure to completion. It is expressly understood and agreed that no Mortgagee shall have any
obligation hereunder to cure or complete any cure of any breach or default by Owner hereunder.
(b) Permitted Transfers to Mortgagee.
(i) Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this
Agreement, the following transfers shall be permitted and shall not require the approval or consent
of City:
(1) A transfer of the Property (and the concurrent transfer of the
Owner's rights under this Agreement with respect to the Project Phase provided the conditions in
Section 2.5.1 hereof have been complied with as to such Project Phase), at a foreclosure sale under
a Mortgage, whether pursuant to the power of sale contained therein or a judicial foreclosure decree,
or by an assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or
(2) Any subsequent transfer by a Mortgagee (or its nominee or
designee if the Mortgagee, or such nominee or designee, is the purchaser at such foreclosure sale
or under such assignment in lieu of foreclosure) with respect to the Property, and the concurrent
transfer of the Owner's rights under this Agreement with respect to the Project Phase that is
transferred, provided that the conditions in Section 2.5.1 hereof have been complied with as to
such Project Phase.
(ii) Any transferee arising from any transfer permitted above shall be
liable to perform the obligations of Owner, as applicable, under this Agreement only so long as
such transferee holds title to the Property, provided that upon any such conveyance of title, such
transferee's transferee expressly assumes and agrees to perform all of the obligations of this
Agreement first arising after the date of such conveyance to the extent applicable to the Project
Phase.
(iii) Following the transfer, if any, described in Section 9.1.4(b)(i)
above, all non -curable defaults existing under this Agreement prior to such transfer shall be deemed
waived without further notice or action of any party.
(c) Rights of Mezzanine Lender. Any lender that makes a loan to Owner or
to any entity holding an interest in Owner, direct or indirect, that is secured by a pledge of equity
interests in Owner, direct or indirect, shall be entitled to all of the rights and remedies under this
Section 9.1.4 that are afforded to a Mortgagee under this Agreement, (i) provided that Owner shall
have provided to City written notice setting forth the name and address of any such lender, and (ii)
except that such rights and remedies shall be subject and subordinate to the rights of any
Mortgagee, and shall not impair any of the rights and remedies afforded any Mortgagee, hereunder.
9.1.5. Obligations of Mortgagee Under Agreement. Any Mortgagee who comes into
possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed
of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property=as applicable, or part thereof,
subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement
to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform
any of an Owner's obligations or other affirmative covenants of an Owner hereunder, or to
guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be
performed by an Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the
performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder,
and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall
be subject to the provisions of Section 2.5 of this Agreement.
10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1. Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof
shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the Clerk of the City Council against the
Property within ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City. If the parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or
cancel this Agreement, or if the City terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided herein for
failure of the Owner to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
City Clerk shall cause notice of such action recorded with the Orange County Recorder, and in
connection with any termination of this Agreement, in such form or by such recordable
instrument, that will allow a reputable title company to remove the Agreement as an exception to
title of the Property (a "Termination Release").
10.2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and
agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or
ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to
herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall
be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
10.3. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be
determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking
into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision
of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the
Development Impact Fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City
would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event
such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall
be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
10.4. Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder
shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with
venue in Orange County. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair
language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and
the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party
shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by
counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.
10.5. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience
only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
10.6. Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.
10.7. Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement the
Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners
under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the
default of all such owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot that has been
finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a member of the general public shall have any
obligation under this Agreement except as expressly provided for herein.
10.8. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement as to which time is an element.
10.9. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions
of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the
default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand
strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
10.10. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole
protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns, and no other person shall
have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
10.11. Force Mai eure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in
performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by: (1) strikes, lockouts or
labor disputes; (2) inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes therefor
(including as a result of freight embargos); (3) inclement weather which delays or precludes
construction; (4) acts of God, including but not limited to earthquakes, or the public enemy or
civil commotion; (5) condemnation, (6) fire or other casualty; (7) shortage of fuel, electricity or
natural gas; (8) action or nonaction of public utilities or of local, state or federal governments,
affecting the work, including, but not limited to, any delays in the permitting process as a result of
the action or inaction of such governmental authorities including government shutdown for a
period of time of one (1) week or more; (9) criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or (10) pandemic or
government imposed quarantine (11) other conditions similar to those enumerated above which
are beyond the reasonable anticipation or control of such Party, or other causes beyond the
Parry's reasonable control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time
for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, provided that the Term of
this Agreement shall not be extended pursuant to this section for more than five (5) years.
10.12. Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also
constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby
of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.
10.13. Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the
benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this
Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and
constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act
hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden
upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any
portion thereof.
10.14. Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed by the parties in counterparts, which
counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had
executed the same instrument.
10.15. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or
brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of
any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of
Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the
filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
10.16. Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between
the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party
is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent
contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this
Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this
Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity
regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.
10.17. Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide
reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all
obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon
the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute and file or record
such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary
under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
10.18. Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict
the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.
10.19. Agent for Service of Process. In the event any Owner is not a resident of the State of
California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint
venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event,
Owner shall file with the City Manager, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a
natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business
addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or
based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such
action shall constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon
such agent is not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process
and such service shall constitute valid service upon Owner. Owner is amenable to the process so
served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and
protests thereto.
10.20. Certificate of Compliance. At any time during the term of this Agreement, any lender or
either Party may request either Party to this Agreement to confirm that (1) this Agreement is
unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications hereto, that this
Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such
modifications); (2) to the best of such Parry's knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement
or if defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults; and (3) any other information
reasonably requested. Each Party hereby agrees to provide a Certificate to such lender or other
Party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written request therefor.
10.21. Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
Owner warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement
on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and
represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind Owner to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
[Signatures on following pages]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the
last day and year set forth below.
SCP:
South Coast Plaza,
a California general partnership
By: C.J. Segerstrom & Sons,
a California general partnership,
its Managing General Partner
By: Henry T. Segerstrom Management LLC,
a California limited liability company,
ManjlEe
By:
Segerstrom, Manager
By: HTS Management , In ., a Ca 'forma
c ora ' n, Management
r
By:
Sr ice President
CITY:
City OF SANTA ANA, a California municipal
corporation
By:
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Jennifer L. Hall City Clerk
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BY:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
Dated:
EXHIBIT "A"
(Legal Description of the Property)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A:
PARCELS 1 AND 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP MARKED EXHIBIT A, ATTACHED TO LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-81-6, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO
82-0001483 OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL B:
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 40, PAGE 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
101 ►:1'A:114Ii7:19]4:Zil��_11�I�IilIJ►��'�
1]e1:114atop
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 41, PAGE 48 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL D:
PARCELS 3 AND 4, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 41, PAGE 48 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXHIBIT "B"
(Map of the Property)
EXHIBIT "C"
Development Plan and list of Project Approvals
Development Plans and entitlement applications as presented in the City Staff Report Dated are
incorporated herein by reference. Project Approvals include, but may not be limited to, the following
entitlements:
1. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report entitled "Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report" State Clearinghouse House No. XXXXX and
City of Santa Ana Development Project No.XXYX-XX("Project FEIR"), which tiers off the GPU
FEIR (SCH# 2020029087) that was certified by the City on April 19, 2022.
2. The " Village Santa Ana" Specific Plan, dated April 2025, adopted by the City Council on
DATE, by way of Ord. No. XX-XXXX.
3. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map, dated XXXX, adopted by Resolution No. XXXX.
4. The Zoning Map Amendment, adopted by the City Council on Date, by way of Ord. No. XX-
XXXX.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 2025-06 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2023-159), AS
CONDITIONED, FOR THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W.
SUNFLOWER AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines,
and declares as follows:
A. Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general
partnership ("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of
various entitlements to facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed -use urban village ("Project").
B. The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa Ana
("City"), on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear
Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11
addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661 W. Sunflower Avenue,
3820, 3840, and 3951 S. Plaza Drive, and 3811 and 3851 S. Bear Street)
and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-451-01, 412-
451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
C. The Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-01
to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6 (SP-
6)) and to approve a zone change for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project Site into
six buildable lots; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01 outlining
terms and conditions for the Project.
D. The Project entails, among other things: (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site and (2) redevelopment of the Project Site into
an urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet
of commercial/retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office space,
including 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and on -site parking
and landscaping.
E. Subdivision requests are governed by Chapter 34 (Subdivisions) and
Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) and the
California Subdivision Map Act (SMA).
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 1 of 11
F. Pursuant to Section 34-127 of the SAMC, approval of a VTTM application
is required for projects proposing to create four or more parcels by the
Planning Commission. However, since the Project requires review of other
entitlements by the City Council, the Planning Commission serves as an
advisory body on such matter.
G. On August 11, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana
held a duly -noticed public hearing on VTTM No. 2025-06 and recommended
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving VTTM No. 2025-06, as
conditioned.
H. On September 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a
duly -noticed public hearing on VTTM No. 2025-06.
The City Council of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following
findings, in accordance with sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the SMA and
Section 34-127 of the SAMC, which must be established in order to approve
VTTM No. 2025-06, have been established:
1) The proposed project and its design and improvements are
consistent with the General Plan land use designation and are
otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan.
The Project and its design and improvements are consistent with the
General Plan land use designation of District Center — High (DC-5),
which allows a maximum floor area ratio of 5.0 and up to 125 dwelling
units per acre. In addition, the Project supports several goals and
policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the Project is consistent
with General Plan Land Use Element (LU) Goal 1, which encourages
projects that improve quality of life and respects the existing
community. Policy LU-1.2 of the LU supports innovative
development policies to expand homeownership opportunities at all
income levels. Policy LU-4.7 of the LU encourages the development
of mixed -income developments with mixed housing types to create
inclusive communities and economically diverse neighborhoods.
Lastly Policy 2.5 of the Housing Element supports diverse types,
prices, and sizes of housing.
2) The proposed project conforms to all applicable requirements of the
zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City
ordinances.
The Project is consistent with the development standards specified
within the Project's proposed Specific Plan (SP-6), including land
use, height, minimum development site area, building frontages,
publicly accessible open space, private/common open space,
building setbacks, and parking and access. Further, the access and
egress for the Project has been thoroughly reviewed by the Public
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 2 of 11
Works Agency for compliance with all applicable development
standards.
3) The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed project.
There are no physical constraints on the Project Site that would
preclude development. The Project Site consists of approximately
17.2 acres of land and is physically suitable for the proposed
development. The lot size, density, width, and lot coverage are
consistent with the existing surrounding properties in the
neighborhood and with proposed SP-6 development standards.
4) The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure to fish or wildlife of their habitat.
The design and improvements of the proposed Project will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. The Project is located in an
urbanized area, and there are no known fish or wildlife populations
existing on the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will
not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause
serious public health problems.
The design or improvements of the proposed Project will not cause
serious health problems. The subdivision will not have any
detrimental effects upon the general public. The property will include
necessary utilities and infrastructure improvements as required by
the SAMC and SMA.
6) The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict
with easements necessary for public access through or use, of
property within the proposed project.
The design and improvements of the Project will not conflict with
easements necessary for public access or use of the property within
the proposed project. In addition, the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) will ensure reciprocal access rights and
maintenance agreements between properties.
Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (Draft SEIR) that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.,
CEQA), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000
et seq., the CEQA Guidelines), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 3 of 11
was made available for public review for 52 days between April 17, 2025 and June 9,
2025. The document was made available online at the City of Santa Ana website and
available for review at City Hall and the Southwest Senior Center in hard copy form. In
response to comments received on the Draft SEIR, the City prepared a Final SEIR and
released it to the public on August 4, 2025. The Final SEIR in the City Council Resolution
approving the Final SEIR is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council Resolution
recommends certification of the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087), adoption of findings
under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the
environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution
incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in the
Resolution for the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087) as if fully set forth herein.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, hereby approves VTTM No. 2025-06, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein for the Project at the Project Site, and as illustrated and
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. This decision is based upon the
evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: The
Request for City Council Staff Report dated September 16, 2025, and October 7, 2025,
and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until the City
Council Resolution for Final SEIR No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087), the City Council
Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2025-01, the City Council Ordinance for
Amendment Application No. 2025-01, and the City Council Resolution to Overrule of
Orange County John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of
Inconsistency for the Project are adopted and become effective. Further, if said
resolutions and ordinances are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any
reason, then this Resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.
Section 5. The documents and materials associated with this Ordinance that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the
custodian of records for the record of proceedings.
Section 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the Applicant may
protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on
this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures
established by sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code.
Section 7. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution
procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other
procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 4 of 11
the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project,
whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code
of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution,
statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal
counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
day of 12025.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 5of11
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No.
NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
on 2025.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 6 of 11
Exhibit A
Conditions for Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 2025-06 is approved subject to compliance, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building
Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant shall comply with
each and every condition listed in order to exercise the rights conferred by this vesting
tentative tract map. The Applicant shall remain in compliance with all conditions listed
below throughout the life of the Project. Failure to comply with each and every condition
may result in the revocation of the vesting tentative tract map.
VTTM No. 2025-06 has been processed concurrently with the Village Santa Ana Specific
Plan (SP-6). The VTTM will create the basis for the legal lots for each development Parcel
and rights -of -way dedications. In accordance with the subdivision map, the Owner shall
be subject to the following standards and conditions:
1. Applicant shall record all legal documents for street dedications along Sunflower
Avenue, Bear Street, and Plaza Drive, and all other interior streets/drive aisles that
intersect with public streets in a form agreeable to the City of Santa Ana.
2. Applicant shall comply with all applicable recommendations as identified by the
Traffic Circulation Analysis (TCA) dated March 26, 2025, and attached hereto as
reference as Exhibit C.
3. Applicant shall comply with the applicable recommendations as identified by the
Parking Management Plan (PMP) prepared March 26, 2025, and attached hereto
as reference as Exhibit D.
4. Applicant shall complete an approved preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) approved by the Public Works Agency.
5. Applicant shall obtain an approval from Republic Services and the City on trash
circulation and collection.
6. Applicant shall construct public improvements as specified on the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map, including, but not limited to, street widenings, sidewalks,
landscaping, irrigation, bus stop pads and shelters, asphalt pavement, raised
medians, traffic signals and stops, crosswalks, street lights, bicycle facilities, and
pedestrian facilities, as determined by the Executive Director of the Public Works
Agency.
7. Applicant shall construct, at their sole expense, new public water mains, sized in
accordance with the hydraulic study recommendations and as approved by the
Water Resources Manager.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 7 of 11
8. Applicant shall construct, at their sole expense, new connections and public
sanitary sewer to convey Project wastewater in accordance with the sewer study
recommendations and as approved the Water Resources Manager.
9. Public improvements constructed in phases shall be designed to accommodate
appropriate transitions between phases in a manner that ensures the safety of the
traveling public. Temporary improvements shall be designed and built in
accordance with all City standards. Detailed engineered plans for all improvements
must be submitted to the Public Works Agency for review and approval by the
Executive Director of the Public Works Agency or designee. Phasing
improvements shall apply the following:
a. Maintain ADA pedestrian paths between each phase (as contemplated by
the Development Approvals) throughout the development project and along
the perimeter public streets of the Project; and
b. Maintain bikeway connectivity between each phase (as contemplated by
the Development Approvals) throughout the development project and along
the perimeter public streets of the Project.
10. Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution for public improvements and
payment shall be made in accordance with the TCA and as determined by the
Executive Director of the Public Works Agency.
11. All public improvements will require engineered plans to be approved by the Public
Works Agency and permits issued for such improvements. Improvements will be
in conformance with City standards, rules and regulations in place at time of plan
approvals.
12. Applicant shall enter into a Right of Way maintenance agreement, conforming to
the City's standard Right of Way maintenance agreement. Through the agreement,
Owner agrees to maintain the new public sidewalks, parkways, irrigation,
landscaping, trees, furnishings, waste receptacles, weed abatement, graffiti
removal and vandalism, specialty pavement, and specialty lighting above and
beyond standard street lights along the Project's frontage on Sunflower Avenue,
Plaza Drive, and Bear Street. Owner may elect to, but is not obligated to, install
specialty lighting above and beyond standard street lights along the Project's
frontage. If Owner installs standard street lights, City shall operate and maintain
same at City's cost. If Owner installs specialty lighting, Owner shall operate and
maintain same at Owner's cost. The Right of Way maintenance agreement shall
not obligate Owner to maintain any street medians, street signals, street signs, nor
to remove City's obligation to provide police and public safety monitoring and/or
enforcement on the public sidewalks and medians.
13. Prior to receiving building permits for each individual building, Applicant shall pay
all development impact fees associated with each building that is the subject of
said building permit.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 8 of 11
14. Prior to receiving building permits for the first Implementing Project on each Phase,
Applicant shall submit to the City either a cash deposit or public improvements
agreement and bond in the amount of the cost of public improvements per each
Phase of the Project. The total amount will be in accordance with the Applicant's
engineer's cost estimate and approved by the Public Works Agency. The City will
release deposit and/or bond as Owner completes related improvements to the
City's satisfaction.
15. Any proposed change to this tentative tract map must be submitted to the Planning
Division and Public Works Agency for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or if the tentative tract map must be amended.
16. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures as identified by
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SCH
No. 2020029087).
17. The Applicant must submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for
the Project to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the Final Map
being recorded for any portion of phase of the Specific Plan area.
18. The Final Map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy or permit finals for any building or structure on any phased final map
portion of the subdivision area.
19. The Final Map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the
subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map
Act.
20. Two copies of the recorded Final Map and CC&Rs shall be submitted to the
Planning Division, Building Division, Public Works Agency and Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA) within 10 days of recordation.
21. A "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" shall be included in all lease/rental agreements, and
the applicant shall post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of
operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the Orange
County/John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan and to minimize potential
future noise complaints.
22. The Applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for each development
within the Specific Plan area prior to the issuance of building permits for any
grading, excavation, or above -ground construction. Said plan shall be
accompanied by a site plan illustrating any phasing, temporary closures,
construction material and equipment staging areas, construction hours, and other
information as requested by the City for the benefit of understanding any temporary
impacts resulting from construction activities.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 9of11
23. The Applicant shall record, as determined to be necessary, an avigation easement
with the City of Santa Ana and the County of Orange in a template and form
agreeable to the City of Santa Ana, the County of Orange, and the Applicant, prior
to issuance of building permits for above -ground construction.
24. The Applicant shall record one or more open space easements against the
Property for the benefit of the City concurrent with the recordation of the
subdivision maps that implement a given Project Phase or Development phase, as
contemplated by the Project Approvals. Such easements shall not be retired until
the property is no longer zoned by the Specific Plan, or zoned or used for
residential purposes.
25. Subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the
Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney,
to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly
maintained, Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized
use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant)
shall execute a Property Maintenance Agreement. The Agreement shall be
recorded against the property by the City and shall be in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the City Attorney. The executed Agreement must be recorded prior
to the issuance of any building permits. The Agreement shall contain covenants,
conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
a. Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of
construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the
construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and
noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved Project phasing, etc.);
b. Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and
restrictions, as applicable (including, but not limited, to hours of operation,
security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris,
enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain
uses);
C. Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters,
signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as
applicable;
d. Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all
improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the
proliferation of trash and debris on or about the property; the proper and
timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of
damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or
improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint,
parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly
accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related
landscape improvements and the like, as applicable);
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 10 of 11
e. If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant
is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the
Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the
Agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with
its terms;
The Agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for
complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the
property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless
the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties,
obligations and responsibilities set forth under the Agreement; and
g. The Agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its
conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City
to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any
enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in
order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce
any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The Agreement
shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred
by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions
shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual
costs and/or expense incurred by the City.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 11 of 11
CENEHAL N7TEs
2 �u —n- Fr�>w 0,,r17xr"XE.��e rrc ca.orl: "..,.A :r�rSAxP..Ne�wirleoRm`�M ew; A'W,M
n' _�EoI�I �Aw
xaew,M.�s ipmrxRm m m!➢I.xl sw x 4•L[
gm
r..INsn41M P9N'4C\A+.AYLINIpR I➢rAlel'N IqO fGSrWgRlsYc�ucPr bNr u�mv�¢[o[mcrrnmNlf in
�� rL Rda[F58 !rO Xeu vE OfosRTEd AYeusw ,x rsmsvm cwmra cvrwa, eN 5rsam C>JL@ up
. .rwwayy rtalr.F., rwwn+rae r•-Lw rwrvwn
r. renm¢rnmrA[Pemm romA:vA:LRrc
nrw F- e.aFs iu!xcx.Y a,msss vx•!en�r,LnP: xsrEa weun Awls. ETef w.v PE
Fl4YaRC Ib4RsuYX.sw a Rlwm A,mcaaeuesar
m. rrernSrxxRANMrRe¢1;RTi ¢ws
•• ! Mom[ ttw�Vlri�r uru�ry vaoll[�ira -�ssn�vc maw .u[ryl,<eBlrt rG, IMb b Mwrt W rtR neLL vtes
•x. ra$neel,px enf11 lRluN.AetRerelSti[rF n[IwR
�I vF BWLbFi1•k s4l r,i WMrRL IWRIMF YrA+fEd[ikW!u.rr vrosNls¢x5xybp v.Av,FRO+d rIRFbGxa'Wtl!
sxmac➢f��e!sAara PTr ms.[MI `�F pA1M�rr mn�Nru�nxceP-,p'rW�u "tt MNOM111eG1�dR ALL
,A .uAQonnlne.w.a � uvAw¢rrkm ,ux
A,mw�Aa.�nAe<AEAFL�rLe.rR..�rar,e..:•e[rT.�,t��r,Aaxw
..�-Ywam. rSmR� r9P RwEm[RLLe� rx[mTPrrortL u Rurrktm x tte
r iL%°y«:r�w.ee�a,Pun `rr"Mi w-i! a`irA. u w�ecc""ren"R.u°X"r'�¢r'r`o�Pr,lnwnrm: bo ueweanwn. we
1r Aflp l<0.'CFS WT[TivlLxllEE!IH!fl�wMx llun[[xu[rcm rn. .n p.rinW AIWIeE AN➢L•;rlb I1D
c v n R,Fs[YEnEMFUFmE..WAm5B�WICEI 65�4R�nIR A�a'fA>IX M R&LYeIEI) VIIMEi AtD
rk IL T [.Vsx wort¢ In41mwJo•me• e¢nxR rvs Rsievy, mAr eWingr,}y, rVxL 1! MtVAA➢,Im b
8. �¢. Pxnedl0u•IG1faC R.ftzx to.m,¢rri arxaexmex,efnR
x2Y�w¢F new r�Rr AicP�mvmowr�v nIAACC�rOXmF��EYllExAAA MSIYw[ •MiW Y,X.Irreemmasrw n.m.
A,. RAxnuA.smousor.s,osazr�wern+..rrw•scar,m,rtw.e.k�ra:..,�rA,rx rr.[nmel
� E�Ert,�iFN�P11I1R[dm na�iew�wxl9u,�aax�.un uxumc rxx�im.Mfnur[.m�p [s xuss���ssF wi�IPE
T[X Pxrw!. mnw PP Prx xwP ml IL ,Leas rP lwrm'u er rr¢ exArinx+mnx Aw ,rLv➢IwrAna[
x ���afinem�,wE`�.:.,[;:
F wlm�artnv- x�vue¢xnrrvrsnasun ewnvlwuaPF➢rd rd11C4 nIL"a¢s taMocwrar[c ww¢rwu "{u" s err
!I. wfrvvdaer...wrx �•a¢nweLixeexameuQ ucwone'xwn„caa,e;n rrv.lfe
Q 1¢A¢b I� vry rrmYs£i 11WIL. -i i ... i -�N-:dfJIXR6 NWRH htl
ewmuvrelrvxr wRrRrtAsn[rm AFsxWrM. nIPrF R!R4N.EOCB'sn:. ... -
tl ALLR➢R Iw AAk.1E 9nEEi1.1e 11eV:AarP.e.11FY11rAR 9kNerrxx'1rr"-.i: :.-.[ r.�y.4AAr.Hlknitlh
uoAEL sm9[ rpusli :Yri',ritier:
oYYf MRN rhvRR[n�ElkMlk uve�4}e�Rxwwe�raTyiM9a MThN L40rAKr�' M1gF"r4 cL•pe¢eE
r,. [rH[GEa1VE YRCWr4GTIM1F6MIrE WMeM1kIJNeUFf IdNM,i,�"•ancrmcrv"w."v'n¢, omrxY xui5a0Mes1 G
omxc�rwrvn�cdu�n�urmu=nwru o�,r�m�x.�.�iw��s[ �arRnlr"xtxn rxslLEI INIr,,.RAurrRx Mmon
c Aulpxrle tmwiAx:mR nrvaAcewmNslcuee,Ywr[rtrnm erlee rPM WIDMO PfAHr 6nE.AA1MEFEfuWF14
m TAR R RE IAmlVAY Of AW h[LYC IC;W'. nx Akvt.YR ¢ rP R surn an w.ai •mttaTrp OF,ma RLps rp M!
NAiW,G1LrvlrwxuRFrilwlM1r.. N[Res Xi.'.Nm(.�a rancn vcv�N•[mr�ieeurrnxo
wo[grIP PBNE1EAfAEMMw'b llErm`irwl Y+mimnonrq� �rt'�rtX.ms
t I �' w[r�.x.�IpEIAE��WI}xxmnewne vuu aa¢vrR
n.elem mws a.necasmer�er r•exYR4r nx [PL L1aL1n4xi 4RR➢BE,LRY AA MIEIFAI'llXllN Pltllr
Y. a g1ERWF1lE �4fNSr1EY0.0.F:F[q){rlpE r�AMiMEEI]w to Nu rtmmr�w.{rgnn[. r5srp[-0LL£•nyl
. aNx nlelL 4dgMfX:.Cs1�TArt��k UTk+n[n' em'9wl Nr�arnenuron'Imrdo
!r oF+FranrbernFdriAmun ne>runnlP.AalYemPaa.EnlPo-eu>E ar.veEPErr!er»Xaanmtn�rx xa.,
• Imprn Ne Ax1[,a±ArarrxAlnrrLr.rw PnonriPnu rrern�i.mA¢rmxr retr-wsa rnc. r.Lx.rhYlw[�r
u eAN.lt<Trtanw.txlwwTmAElnnuorinaArelrel,<rtoeerm trxw..wueLAkuonex.uswE.uLeTelwfosr
rr AMAtARr,4 rlrrR,IpAMlya!R xarX�eyaya ®�mnianly mf •PAA
WATER SYSTEM NOTEFr.
r �I(1[is1111: MreP WWrPMuelelLlkTN 4w1I.wAmleenesTn xeRelaDANA EAPAIWLp nE WhA RF1.riI
�reety urteswt o,aawrorxarP..r9i11'eR e'(ifdfA.
]. 411N1Nevl1Ea111FA AWr•9Wu ECRr4F1EA ImMxurO YPuelu�aRrmrvry cowaigw{s:m'W@r up
ARv£RfehliL
urn;m.a{p gtEXgwPn wAt kLeyyAr�kx:rkE f&:Xnw.rknatvu[sraxa.mvA,¢ePxalatnxrts.
rte[Y%�N4UYAM1[UL(fArFA N•EDiJL.SExHNNFM.:MIRavtiu•s6�hsw wwin ¢carro nwrW sme`mttxl¢�
�NA� tAaE 6P1M WAr�Aak[rtays �y`Fw�as , o¢w¢�NWr�io M+re �¢so�iwirym,�FW Ic�GIMi'��c
AA'rWx rt , v
kPtENL�PAAar¢leR NN�I lorPoN. �an��x'wr �M�m�Rx
wrionaX:.w��cnai eiP,'�
�.I ware`�'P'eEAwmx�[FwrnarrcPLrn!rarrPf PPrr[r➢ru[Ercanmr�!xrnwcE.
vaYurtgXrcw Fuc¢yrr¢cmuy ry[eEmmFy p.,,.dxuro vxeeae xru rrenn[Cx
Im Aln smat XAAaweafar n.[e Du N1VGRPl
®F[cMSRu.ax RYn6asN+Y Pam4C• W7lrrmf. i1P4]IgNGW PIN 41kWln AMNL hrake[uFxRvmA
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2023-159
IN THE CITY OF SANTAANA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHFETiNOEk
F£NOASL$dY81CH1)F PARCEL61 ANO2OF LQrL1NE AD.RIFSTMEHTR0. L4�11�, P�CORp(pJAHVk412. t5Hi LF:T �PR°�y!
AS WGTpLeYENY N-XR l-, 0ETHER'MTH PAROEL2 AS PER NIW FILED Ik NOGI<40. PACE a OF
PARCE wk AW PAROELA e. S AM X 0 PER MAP FI LEO PI ROOI(41. PAGEi OF PAR[Y WPS• a➢4 �e
CM TAN
ALL REMRL)e of THE COHH7Y R1:ppROFA of 9HAMGE COLYNTY, DAUFORNIA f
TARdASSOCIATES INC. KNE]OIN
151Q?r,HiprtSODA
.��.,... a 'w Y••�m
YMnrva,�rHIArT SOUTH CDAST $ANHID INTE
,,,
rlLOffdoulhCaas3tPlaa&Village
1heEnda�xatSoulh ,
Coast Aparfmiwn�i�n
a
SITE SnuthCoalI
�n� � .��^.•�..�w,-�•^�°m..
Iwb
F j'rl➢I IAII; I k➢ � IR �
wirnetxepe&erFo-nes
rnl� EYCEPIfCN9
O,:::•°'°."�'"�
AMN 1314
am rw¢
nm
'4•
a p
__ __ ..--.
a..rw .�
'�.���'•nk�N�/A:^sy41..x....
VIClNITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
cW Ep aYeipfLNOTE9
.�orw.w unm u..� a w..yu •w ewe e
I AILst3YPELYeIVwllf wuartwxmawuecunksaet[i rorr�Prasxup rPtF➢eALtC }T rµ1FPPPBWR�
YNu2adrewr,vFccaorr reow svgrae me wTP almePAlx rw.;lsEa
1. LLAMr!gwAnaenesr.Ina_weseee'¢.teree.wwEl nrYzuwxrrcn[IrtresAlnAmrw.raus ne uasP
]g9RrYAF1.R,bnAEAlrAi4A!�N: ffrL.liolf➢AuftAa]Gn.�l.ri➢!ama�mre[[{cxlaAppnc(uylpgq
turf eLL lJwfexssx.a.:e.rusuer�M�a`tlLNRr<vHal�WAEmrvT pnewr�wipt ¢o�rr.�cXee c�
r oc r.s waai nnww io •� a.
C.R�.a.T.iEYw�RG•L �.JIr
w.e.>mr�w�wa�liv..e�iu. wec�o.r
uma.0 rswaw tl Mlralw[l a•Yo
I YYYov a•r�e_w.n �o•.c�nnrnnrxrie
lMA1exlkr iofiwm�i•e m AxwFxa ufmr.
e. M6AlWetuL OF IIF 1uIfRffBgAGkwrWWMru Ele�IrONG.M.MYlwlL.setvo urlrweetrro,xlmey
. �N���Nwoeuc[mYlmlMrrlTVIMRFCr[}A4aP1HiAYX&iP[.9[L➢YIrFB4 MfRWPMAJe
(� u
rMvr•. ai•
�ebLLYAPAaMi3ar Ot9WYfW[aINlbw[e.r.Nle[FRrieuotlt �m nwrimc.[n[�xT,rn•AnnMM1!
NY9F�MNI[e�:VUAeam�PlFeteenex �[,1xP; spk I�IL vuaA
•. asanertl¢reAa➢A�v++e�RecN�EnuenoasAxum okE.7E �mieEr•T�rneamw"LL`„�°U`r"!�..:�xr.ro
xomrsa.wn ww.rro[m�an nf.rt YRVF[AVNhk rI1HMI�firtrce�WF0..1PY[E.rteM
"`u._ .nrrr�u..•. w. �n.•.�..r.....e
�r _. n.._ ... n.....F...�....•..e..
Q+�.�
� . x .
Ha3LL OFaFAiINO]'
re.r(!iieeswwrua� e�e�r,.M1wr
pPCMA .
qer AUW..w :eM
m cau ic'%�i.�m
rESAETrT
nMDMIIFIRATFJIRIXE4
waw-e�.r.•KLXw.
�a r
z➢raae rEonsAcxTNwr arnn..a mr..r
PnenwP.RLIIwawwRr
FLOOtl1r!AL
t�vur •�i urn 'gym
91
i [F 5
IrtGFT GTATiA1FM.
AYE
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP NO.2923-159
IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
9EINGR"Olmi?NOf PARCEL81A➢IO2CFLOTLMEAQJU6TMEKNO. LLA1$ RECXI JANWRY21982
k41X41AUMEFyT NO.8t4NA um. FOGETHER 9Til PAKeL2 AS PER MAP FUO1N 80OX 4OPAGE 0 OF
PARCELIMPGFNORARGM2.aAN04AGPERW VOINM41, PAGE 49OF PARCFL IMPS,
ALL AECOAOSOF THE COLINlY REGCROER OF OAAW6 COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
TAFF;A59QGlATE8, M.-TG9ER29I4
OLELC
i IACA FITHVH 66U-�EvkD F0
v8-
��
PLOTIE06sB91EHR�
iYF.}
SITE
�14� rn.
Wu
sunlra
nrtSna
�.,Prty
4I19c.s�'r_3
mm�l�sa,s,
w.rta
Q
un iaTa i m
„aA •n rnm:a .
ww— n
mAm
4
m„�, �.rea..
mrcm m.
vm�wnc uert.cu yuFnr
xstvs em awna'�o.aro
s"{"&�ni*+urn,�,
ROtR �n
van ,om, oar y�
�wnar9rr
saw
I�al
OnP;1°'
�
m�wx roc°xwn..
IhLRBi �].��REGI� RY
%,�i�^"�w�rn�� •wee a•�
Fulw.Etis i woes �
ec oinil�sei�l�
,F�y��,
yl¢x.
IAI,TW,xh,0.VH.
miAM W.
w c u,urt, eyx a
U5l. NA. 1W2-�,SNB
3C. IWVhNi
']ary
lARG
°�
NOTE
SEE WET T FOR UNERAL NOTES
1�
189 Ji II
I
� 4
GRAPHIC SCALE o 11 i g
2P E 3`
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19360
IN THE CTY OF SANTA ANA.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
A �
TAR d AS54ClATES. INC, Meth Z]
nwc� urxx�ill.n L
pxr+ury
a
aa 1-'ntL
PARCEL
N£Sla]ENTIAE A}ERTI-STGR1 ntli r I
I
a
I
UTAEUING WYTR GNUERGRUUNU I I
a
I
FARKAVG 5lRUCIUR£ clurwp scA�
„I
PARCEL3
I
(sfEARLYrr£trUR RUNS rJ
I
I
WI r
i b
RESTO£NY1AL LWL TI-STURr
euxGTNc POW r1NBeRCRorAA�
�'
dl
rPR L'E7R r D I
i
t�tetl lr
cartvrncwa-,Jmr
y
j9AV CSTRI,tT y
PARCEL-0
s
J
(src ARc±NrrcruRAa PLAA's
rOR UFAR)
RBSRuuT+u vuiTr-doer
RNIUNNNrs WIN IiM1'dERCBC[LYU
.I
j . f J / I xanEoua�MsurTAm
('
y
rARNrRc srRucTUR£
I ,.a�xa a..ro
(SEE ARL'NITECTURAL FLANS
lI , FOR C'i'liq II r 11 .J
Jmrs 5 � I JI a
� � I aaIWII�R£SrD£Nrk! �l I I ANKFd-USED dutrI-SOY
PARCEL2 WLMOEWMIJAfJ LuUolx�Uo, uWeITdH uUuNrU!£-R5PRraORUr
Ndrf-5rRr RINC.7%crURf
8WOM WITH UNB£RBRPUN (S£C ARNECGAi FLANS AARNC SlRUCURf �2t
In PARKING STRUCTUE l F& NETAL (5E ACN£CTAPA[ FL1Ni
(SEE ARCHITECTURAL FLANS rmTa �
orrAft) I �IAG 9 F
3 Q FaR DETAR)Lill
4
- —
DF
PARCEL i I f
,91
� Illil9. K4q Al•AEG
JrN 'O�Ji.' rO�F W194!
I � i L � 1 � i W ,•�.'� "'^'�,. snunas � •oas uaw ouwr f
i� � - i � mID11 m. y A IaNWYxa �a f
MINCd-US(O RfUI,TI-sTORi w U �
BuewNc WqN vNaERCRauNu PARCEL. 6 U --
(SEC ARCRIT£CTOAL PLARS +f W "n WXEU-USED MUlrl-SiDRY m m I
FUR UErA!!J I Rufww WITH UAA7EKGR[MAW7 iV '
f l PARKING STRNGrUW
a HATE:
5£F dRL'RITCCryRAL PLANS
i I I FOfl REFA!!J II SEE SHEET 1 FOR CENERAL MAP NOTES. '
SEE SHEET 2 FOR LINE AND CUM ?AEIE
—
�1[�iN'A1 ZMTA rffP� _ (W�b
Ha4ae
(Pua. C WW - WIDTH VARIES)
SUNFLOWER AVENUE
VA
rLuI, lIRM]
I
SECTIQNA-A
�.
�s
s � � La rsE•563a '� _ —O __� � �gII1 ! e'e'swe� to � ess
I - � _.. ... _ _ k�'/ / � Syr• an-
• 4 I
— ' it �'' I I• � � 14j I
i�ody `� �•,i
_ '--o
J .,'. [.I - LNL ` qA SECT$
r
.. � f—ti--�._ • and j al ...• n�rtma I � � � E cekn E.�J swa Ilu u �r� "
R-_ _: ._- � � �pnev 1.. im.j I .. � Irni •qi i ���
1 I A tLLRu %Y � -
I j; I .rrl va. mar w,¢ I��i ��tsr l"T')��-_----------� ��- :; �,• .� f�i.
nMGldtr ✓fr4�l /f( Hnlp'/niu 1p [:ri
m _ r �� FSEAfm � I y . � 1 �.I +: • r � � tit�•sR� I.
4 4m eqN N,r40.de
r..g lM.l
SECTION C-N
uPaG]5 i �'i � I arL�am -
I ! R R iealrw - lrai I wnR..l. mr:x ,:r�•i=-=-' alnwrt
'
oaw lm] I k Le.N lux
real®
DZ Im] e g
I - i f�, � t_ I' _ _ •r>,. �raxPl � s-ue' y-r g u Za
r 1 - wNn I ron.m .r.am Iq ! J
I I a xR wm
.i •: I I Ira � 1 RiaiAS�� � � �.. I - - _ - C � ��
_ F Ij 7r d RPYt I ~ �6lrJrCPWnJ m � Ir9P1R � r�2�
I °"�"'41 ' 3EGT16N F• � ���
_ - H-�' ❑� ���� CM.0 T� „4 � - � SIM'MH IO.YI[I � �Nn
__ IL� -_�_�_ I�R�r p¢�So uim�f.'+i11Y ��A+�__ - �Y L7 ❑� I.
wo
TAIM I nlAr.^O AIM � �
LEGEND n-xni r a'm I w,ua�rr�
RLmm� �� rnvms aI, °y , w HCEE
i n,R�[�rm�L• wr•.rail SEE 54EET t FOR GflJERAL NOTES
m a Lnu
IV -. w,xecu ,N,.R m..lu � � , • � Gaeone¢ °m wP
IgECT p
�wirutiti ra miw rrxucrr He �'¢ r
� minus srw mxurwovan � �onnpEn�roxuasr.�ee]r ewh �aLus $
I E
i-��•• [MMEMIH`t➢IIVhRM1 ui Il °�M. NlPI F
i2a !
i� SEA HH 4nr5
r .� W WR °R+.r.•
I ww� r f`� � � +• � Wlw.s
j.,
s� a n W,x Pvc �...Inwc nRe..ac n, rR WIfA:M — - - — s.smcvsoPm reanr.x
— �ce um nnc= r• �I �] -------axlm RSG9xon[ws
.�p $YFrur I mi �� r1.�f _—_----ao¢."nl umaruv rw.�r e.�„�•,.:
II I UP4[5 :I �I - 11
MOTE
5CE 5HEE11 FOR UTILITY MOTES,
y I
'srx Gal �mlm�rrw `��,a l,� a ms,sia I � J � '! r •� ,
sin l
r!
4 A� R.PYLi
- .eeYnelr,«rcPuru rlm��— I _ n:« _ _ r• Ljj
--— — I J III i� I r r A It
ewnw a om�Pr
FF i 9 M.�urrsv /II j 1 1.
_—. `yf I Ir I ` [LMWIAIWOR Lw.Lwn wf aR. wm [MI I { }o
IL
� L!l 1WP �fOR W1°IJIm `a' � � SG+CIYC WIG III I f" �8
uF,
I! � 1 Rw.eoA I i r
' ' — — — .. re c m[az oso oFsn p
o asa Puc. � — — -• •• — — . ;j-'r m. r�nwart`� I • I 1
I �� cew _.. wow---_--�_—�— _� .���- � �•• a�—�-------- �
ooc "1 aaY' I I J+
I � r I s��axal yyy go
Vo
Irua�,Y,yw 1!!w
A
LL
rokY 1 I Aim •! - - flH�•Yp b�F[�� Y ' �. 4 � � M P9G G� � ! � � �pq.
T—
�
x[r�oa°r� I�n•�rRsn — mmc;°%"r wsac z[mYW , . ��J ewicml � :. + _--. I o a'� � �:,..� 9mTw — as r.s shar _ .._ — - - wno ue —:a •ia R r r•R •°°`n'°'
nYn wn u
— — -- WNFLOWERAVENVE
- W WL Y4Y RRN YE Y/J '
I
r lj
f I
j E
.] g
Exhibit C
The Traffic Circulation Analysis for The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) is
available Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/specific-
plan-the-village-santa-ana/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Exhibit D
The Parking Management Plan for The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) is
available Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/specific-
plan-the-village-santa-ana/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
THAT THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W.
SUNFLOWER AVENUE, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE
AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines,
and declares as follows:
A. Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general
partnership ("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of
various entitlements to facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed -use urban village ("Project").
B. The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa Ana
("City"), on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South Bear
Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11
addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661 W. Sunflower Avenue;
3820, 3840, and 3951 S Plaza Drive; and 3811 and 3851 S. Bear Street)
and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-451-01, 412-
451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 W.
Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
C. The Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-01
to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6 (SP-
6)) and to approve a zone change for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project Site into
six buildable lots; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01 outlining
terms and conditions for the Project.
D. The Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site and (2) redevelopment of the Project Site into
an urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet
of commercial/retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office space,
including 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and on -site parking
and landscaping.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 1 of 20
E. The City is located partially within the area contained within the scope of the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA).
F. Consistent with the requirements of California Public Utilities Code (PUC)
Section 21676 et seq., because a portion of the proposed Project is within
the area covered by the AELUP, subsequent to its introduction, the Project
was submitted to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
for consideration of the Project's consistency with the AELUP.
G. At its meeting on June 19, 2025, the ALUC determined that the Project is
inconsistent with the AELUP of JWA.
H. On July 16, 2025, the City provided a notice of intent to overrule ALUC's
determination of inconsistency pursuant to PUC Section 21676, subdivision
(b).
On August 12, the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) provided a response to the City's notice of intent
to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination.
On August 15, 2025, ALUC provided a response to the City's notice of intent
to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination and submitted additional
comments.
K. Pursuant to PUC sections 21670 and 21676, if an ALUC determines that a
proposed adoption or amendment of a specific plan or zoning ordinance is
inconsistent with an AELUP, the referring local agency may, after a public
hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing
body, upon making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent
with the purposes of the PUC Section 21670.
L. Pursuant to City Council direction given at a City Council meeting on July
15, 2025, City staff has provided appropriate notice of the City Council's
intent to overrule the ALUC's determination.
M. On September 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing
regarding the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of
inconsistency.
N. The City Council finds that the Project is in the best interests of the City and
is consistent with the purposes set forth in Public Utilities Code Section
21670.
Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Draft SEIR) that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., CEQA),
the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.,
the CEQA Guidelines), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR was made
available for public review for 52 days between April 17, 2025 and June 9, 2025. The
document was made available online at the City of Santa Ana website and available for
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 2 of 20
review at City Hall and the Southwest Senior Center in hard copy form. In response to
comments received on the Draft SEIR, the City prepared a Final SEIR and released it to
the public on August 4, 2025. The Final SEIR in the City Council Resolution approving the
Final SEIR is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council Resolution recommends
certification of the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087), adoption of findings under CEQA,
and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental
impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference
the environmental findings and analysis set forth in the Resolution for the Final SEIR
(SCH No. 2020029087) as if fully set forth herein.
Section 3. The City Council is required to provide findings of fact supporting the
overrule of ALUC's determination of inconsistency as required by PUC Section 21676,
subdivision (b). The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the findings set
forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Findings").
Section 4. Based on these Findings and the associated substantial evidence in
the public record, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that the proposed
action by the City on the Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics
Act as stated in PUC Section 21670, and consistent with the AELUP.
Section 5. Based on the above evidence and Findings made, and the remainder
of the record in this matter, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby overrules the
ALUC's determination that The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project (SP-6) is
inconsistent with AELUP.
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
Section 7. The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the
custodian of records for the record of proceedings.
Section 8. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution
procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other
procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against
the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project,
whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 3of20
of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution,
statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal
counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this day of , 2025.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers:
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 4 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No.
NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
on 2025.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 5 of 20
Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF FACT
SUBJECT:
CITY OF SANTA ANA NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR
THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION:
The City of Santa Ana ("City") is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of
the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) determination of
inconsistency as required in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b).
Based on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial evidence in the
public record, the proposed action by the City on the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
Project ("Project") is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated
in PUC Section 21670, which provides, in relevant part:
It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by
ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures
that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within
areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted
to incompatible uses."
Specifically, the City's proposed action on the Project provides for the orderly
development of John Wayne Airport (JWA), and its surrounding area and promotes the
overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and
safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption
of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards to the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses.
II. FRAMEWORK:
It is in the public interest to: (1) provide for the orderly development of each public use
airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to (2) promote the overall
goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to PUC
Section 21669 and to (3) prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
A. To provide for the orderly development of JWA and the area surrounding the
airport, the ALUC adopted the 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for
John Wayne Airport (JWA) on April 17, 2008. The AELUP for JWA guides
development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the
area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section
2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, building height restrictions).
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 6 of 20
B. The ALUC also adopted a separate Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports
(Heliports AELUP) on June 19, 2008.
C. The ALUC is required to use the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
("Handbook") that was updated by the California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans) in 2011. Neither the JWA AELUP nor the
Heliports AELUP have been updated to incorporate the Handbook's guidance.
Likewise, the JWA AELUP has not been updated with information about the
operation and environmental effects of JWA as reflected in its most recent Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors on June 25, 2019 for the General Aviation Improvement Program
(GAI P).
D. The City of Santa Ana is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of the
Orange County ALUC determination as required in PUC Section 21676(b). Based
on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial evidence in the
public record, the proposed action by the City on the Project at 1561 W. Sunflower
Avenue and related zoning change (amendment application) are consistent with
the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670.
E. The proposed Project provides for the orderly development of JWA, and its
surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State noise
standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the public
health, safety and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the extent
that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. This Project would not
add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65 dBA
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area.
F. As the Project proposes a zone change and adoption of a Specific Plan, and
pursuant to PUC Section 21676, the City of Santa Ana referred the proposed
Project to the ALUC for review.
G. The ALUC has adopted FAR Part 77 as the criteria for determining height
restrictions in Orange County. FAR Part 77 requires notification to FAA for any
project that would be more than 200 feet in height above ground level or within the
imaginary surface of a 100:1 slope extending outward for 20,000 feet from the
nearest runway. Here, the Project site is located within the 206-foot-high imaginary
surface area for JWA, and the proposed mixed -use buildings that are a part of the
Project would be a maximum of 25 stories high, with the tallest point on the
buildings being 315 feet above the existing ground level. Thus, FAA notification is
required.
H. On June 19, 2025, the City of Santa Ana presented the Project to the ALUC for a
determination of consistency with the JWA AELUP.
The ALUC staff report for that hearing recommended that the ALUC find the
proposed Project consistent with AELUP issues of aircraft noise, flight tracks and
safety, and heliports. The staff report noted that with regard to AELUP issues of
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 7 of 20
height restrictions, the Project is inconsistent per Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP,
which states that "a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not
automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC and that the
Commission may find a project Inconsistent based on an Obstruction
determination", and Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP, which states that "within the
boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent with the
AELUP which... permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect
adversely the continued operation of the airport; or permit activities or facilities that
would affect adversely aeronautical operations." The proposed Project would allow
buildings up to 25 stories and/or 315 feet, which would penetrate the FAR Part 77
Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
J. On June 19, 2025, the ALUC held a public hearing and, by unanimous vote,
adopted a resolution finding the Project inconsistent with the AELUP for the stated
reasons set forth in the staff report.
K. The City of Santa Ana has the general police power to control land use within its
territorial jurisdiction. (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional authority is
acknowledged in State law (PUC §§ 21676, 21676.5) and the ALUC process
allowing for overrule of an ALUC finding of inconsistency.
L. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City may overrule the commission by a
two-thirds vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the Project is
consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
M. The City finds that the Project is consistent with the AELUP and with the purposes
of the State Aeronautics Act based on the following Findings of Fact and
substantial evidence.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project. The Project consists of a specific plan
for a 17.2-acre site to allow for up to 1,583 residential units (encompassing
approximately 1,850,000 square feet of building space), 80,000 square feet of
retail space, 300,000 square feet of office space, and over 7.5 acres of common
open space. The Project requires discretionary approval of a tentative tract map,
amendment application (zone change) for a specific plan, development
agreement. The specific plan contains permissive uses and development
standards, but does not specify exact locations and heights of each implementing
development that falls within the scope of the specific plan.
B. The comments in ALUC's staff report and ALUC's determination of inconsistency
found the Project inconsistent with AELUP for JWA per Section 3.2.1 because the
Project would allow buildings up to 25 stories and/or 315 feet which would
penetrate the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
C. During the June 19, 2025 ALUC hearing on the Project, City staff and the project
applicant provided supplemental information about the nature of a specific plan,
how implementing projects will be reviewed, information on existing high-rises in
the vicinity, and FAA notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet in
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 8of20
n
height, and that conditions of approval for the Project would contain a condition
requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all lease/rental agreements
and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft,
which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential
future noise complaints. Despite this information, the ALUC voted to find the
Project inconsistent per Sections 2.1.3 and 3.2.1 of the AELUP.
Justification for Finding Project Consistent with the Purposes of PUC
Section 21670.
1. Noise. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
Project are consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the AELUP and
the requirements of PUC Section 21670.
a. The Project is located outside of the JWA 60 to 65 dBA CNEL aircraft
noise contours. Aircraft noise analysis was completed in the Project's
SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and presented at the
ALUC hearing.
The AELUP establishes aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level
compatibility thresholds for new development by land use category.
According to the exterior noise thresholds outlined in the AELUP,
multi -family residential development is considered normally
consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL,
conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels between 60 and 65
dBA CNEL and normally inconsistent with exterior noise level above
65 Dba CNEL. For commercial retail land use, exterior noise levels
are considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less
than 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally consistent with exterior noise
level above 65 dBA CNEL.
b. According to Section 5.9 of the SEIR, the Project site is located
outside of both the airport's planned and actual (2019) 60 CNEL
contours of JWA. Thus, according to the AELUP, the Project
residential, open space, and commercial retail land uses are
normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise
level compatibility thresholds.
C. The airport related noise on the Project site does not exceed the
City's Municipal Code permissible noise levels.
d. The County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance prohibits
commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. and arrivals between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
e. Based on the foregoing, these restrictions substantially limit the
aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for
residential use. Thus, noise impacts related to JWA would be less
than significant.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 9 of 20
f. The JWA GAIP EIR also contains noise analysis demonstrating that
the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. This noise
analysis is based on one year's worth of aircraft operations in all
runway operating configurations for both existing aircraft fleet mixes
and future fleet forecasts. This analysis includes the time of day of
all operations and includes noise penalties for evening (7 pm to 10
pm) and night (10 pm to 7 am) aircraft operations of five and ten
decibels per operation. Residential land uses are normally consistent
in areas impacted by aircraft noise up to 60 dBA CNEL and
commercial land uses up to 65 dBA CNEL as shown in the AELUP
Table 1. These are the same noise standards used by the FAA and
the State of California to identify compatible land uses near airports.
g. The Project is located outside of the JWA single -event aircraft noise
contours. The detailed aircraft noise analysis completed as part of
the JWA GAIP EIR included analysis of single event aircraft noise.
This analysis included single event noise contours for the noisiest
aircraft making regular use of JWA. The Project site is located
outside of the JWA 85 dB single event noise contours for all aircraft
making regular use of the Airport.
h. The Project includes a condition of approval notifying future
residents. The conditions of approval also include notification
measures, which includes a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be
included in all lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage
informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft, which
demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize
potential future noise complaints.
The General Plan Update (GPU) in 2022 addresses noise, safety,
hazards, and other related impacts from development in the vicinity
of the Airport. Projects approved under the GPU would be required
to comply with the GPU guidelines.
Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of
City residents to excess noise within the meaning of PUC Section
21670.
2. Safety. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP.
a. Section 2. 1. 2 of the JWA AELUP describes the airport's safety
compatibility zones.
1) Per Section 2. 1. 2 of the JWA AELUP, " Safety and
compatibility zones depict which land uses are acceptable
and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport
environs."
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 10 of 20
2) The purpose of these zones, per the JWA AELUP, is to "
support the continued use and operation of an airport by
establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air
navigational safety and to reduce potential safety hazards for
persons living, working or recreating near JWA."
b. The JWA AELUP identifies the following Safety Zones:
1) Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
2) Zone 2: Inner Approach/ Departure
3) Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
4) Zone 4: Outer Approach/ Departure Zone
5) Zone 5: Sideline Zone
6) Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone
C. According to the ALUC staff report, the Project is not in any of the
AELUP safety zones. The Project is located more than 0.40 miles
from the outer edge of AELUP Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone as
depicted in Appendix D. Further, AELUP Appendix D states the
"Basic Compatibility Qualities" of Zone 6 as "Allow residential uses"
and "Allow most nonresidential uses.
d. The Project is not in the JWA runway protection zones (RPZ). The
Project is located approximately 1.5 miles from the outer edge of the
nearest JWA RPZ.
e. No part of the Project will be inconsistent with the policies set forth in
Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP regarding Safety Compatibility
Zones. Furthermore, the ALUC did not find, that the Project is
inconsistent with Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP.
Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of
City residents to excessive safety hazards within the meaning of
PUC Section 21670.
3. Height. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
Project are consistent with the height standards of the AELUP. The
allowable height of structures surrounding an airport is described in FAR
Part 77 as the allowable height at which safe movement of aircraft occurs.
The regulation requires that notice be given to the FAA if there is a proposal
to construct a structure that would exceed a 100:1 slope of an imaginary
surface extending outward for 20,000 feet from the nearest runway at JWA.
Beyond the 100:1 imaginary surface, FAR Part 77 also requires notification
to FAA for any project that will be more than 200 feet in height above the
ground level.
a. The proposed buildings associated with the Specific Plan would not
exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 100:1 (one percent sloping
surface from the nearest runway over 3,200 feet in actual length)
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 11 of 20
FAA notification surface to require the Filing of FAA Form 7460-1.
b. The buildings exceeding 200 feet in height in the Specific Plan area
are not within the geographic area or sloping, three-dimensional 50:1
FAA precision instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R
(the closest runway to the Project).
C. Penetrating a Civil Airport Imaginary Surface, like the Horizontal
Surface, does not in itself define a hazard. The Horizontal Surface is
not unequivocally airspace reserved for air navigation, it is an
imaginary surface used by the FAA to study whether obstructions are
potential hazards and whether any mitigation factors can be
considered (page 2-3 of FAA AC 150/5190-4B, Airport Land Use
Compatibility Planning). These FAA studies determine whether a
building poses a public safety issue or will adversely impact the
continued operation of the airport and other aeronautical operations.
1) Penetrating a Civil Airport Imaginary Surface is a trigger to file
a Form 7460 so that the FAA can conduct its aeronautical
study. The FAA, through these studies, determines whether a
building poses a public safety issue or will adversely impact
the continued operation of the airport and other aeronautical
operations. This is noted on Page 3-31 of the Caltrans California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: "By definition, any
object that penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces is
deemed an obstruction to air navigation. However, not all
obstructions are necessarily hazards. The determination of
whether an object would be a hazard to air navigation is made
as part of an aeronautical study conducted by the FAA..."
2) As per 14 CFR Section 77.25, "The purpose of an
aeronautical study is to determine whether the aeronautical
effects of the specific proposal and, where appropriate, the
cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or
alteration when combined with the effects of other existing or
proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air
navigation."
3) Further, in 14 CFR Section 77.29, the regulation specifies that
these studies include evaluating-
(1) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route
procedures for aircraft operating under visual flight rules,
(2) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route
procedures for aircraft operating under instrument flight
rules;
(3) The impact on existing and planned public use airports
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 12 of 20
(4) Airport traffic capacity of existing public use airports and
public use airport development plans received before the
issuance of the final determination;
(5) Minimum obstacle clearance altitudes, minimum
instrument flight rules altitudes, approved or planned
instrument approach procedures, and departure procedures;
(6) The potential effect on ATC radar, direction finders, ATC
tower line -of -sight visibility, and physical or electromagnetic
effects on air navigation, communication facilities, and other
surveillance systems;
(7) The aeronautical effects resulting from the cumulative
impact of a proposed construction or alteration of a structure
when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed
structures.
4) Even if a structure penetrates an imaginary surface, it still may
not be deemed a hazard by the FAA. As stated in 14 CFR
Section 77.31 (d):
A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be
issued when the aeronautical study concludes that the
proposed construction or alteration will exceed an
obstruction standard but would not have a substantial
aeronautical impact to air navigation. A Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following:
(1) Conditional provisions of a determination.
(2) Limitations necessary to minimize potential problems,
such as the use of temporary construction equipment.
(3) Supplemental notice requirements, when required.
(4) Marking and lighting recommendations, as
appropriate.
d. The FAA issued thirty-seven (37) Determination of No Hazard based
on 37 Form 7460-1's filed by South Coast Plaza for eight (8)
buildings. The heights of these eight buildings ranged from 95 feet
AGL to 279 feet AGL based on an initial architectural concept of
design. The Specific Plan does allow for development with a
maximum height of 25 stories/315 feet and also states that "an infill
project must comply with all applicable policies and associated
mitigation measures—e.g., sound attenuation, height limitation,
occupancy limits... consistent with the AELUP". When actual
development proposals are submitted to the City of Santa Ana,
sponsors will be required to submit a Form 7460 to the FAA as per
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 13 of 20
AELUP guidelines and FAA requirements.
e. The ALUC suggests that because four buildings exceeded
Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces by 26 to 107 feet under Part 77 and
required study by the FAA, that they are hazards to air navigation or
pose a public safety issue. Caltrans, in their response letter, does
the same. This is incorrect.
1) All eight buildings were deemed to not be hazards.
2) Four of the buildings had no conditions, other than filing a
Form 7460-2. As stated in those determinations:
(a) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure
does not exceed obstruction standards and would not
be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA
Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or
Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned
or within 5 days after the construction reaches its
greatest height (7460-2, Part 2).
3) Four of the buildings had a marking/lighting condition, in
addition to filing a Form 7460-2. As stated in those
determinations:
(a) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure
would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by
aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it
is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this
Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in
accordance with FAA Advisory circular 7017460-1 M,
Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights -Chapters
4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts
more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or
flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position,
should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so
a Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) can be issued. As
soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the
same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2,
Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed
any time the project is abandoned or within 5 days after
the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2,
Part 2).
Each future site -specific implementing development under the
Project will be required to be submitted through the City's
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 14 of 20
development review process, at which point if a specific building is
proposed within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Notification Area that exceeds 200 feet in height, FAA notification
compliance would be required through the development review
process.
g. In addition to requiring FAA notification for any buildings exceeding
200 feet in height within the Project area, AELUP and FAR Part 77
require an FAA aeronautical study to be conducted to ensure that the
proposed structures would not constitute a hazard to air navigation.
h. The FAA's Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the
Mixed -Use development structures are the only source of
authoritative, aviation safety findings regarding the Project because:
1) "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)).
2) In order to use this airspace, the FAA Administrator is
responsible for:
(a) Plans and policy for the safe use of the navigable
airspace (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1); and
(b) "[R]egulations on the flight of aircraft (including
regulations on safe altitudes) for navigating, protecting
and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and
property on the ground; using the navigable airspace
efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft,
between aircraft and land or water vehicle, and
between aircraft and airborne objects" (49 U.S.C. §
40103(b)(2)).
3) The FAA's aeronautical studies for project structures are the
definitive standard for assessing compliance with federal
aviation safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § 77.1(c)).
This federal authority is recognized in State law (Cal. PUC
§21240).
The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study (49 U.S.C. §44718 and
14 CFR Part 77) and issue its Determinations for individual
implementing projects that exceed 200 feet in height and are
submitted within the Specific Plan area.
The Project is an approval only as to the specific plan. No specific
structures are contemplated as part of the Project. Therefore, nothing
in the Project will create an obstruction or hazard to air navigation
within the meaning of 14 CFR Part 77, and no part of the Project
involves the proposed construction or alteration of any structures.
Accordingly, no aeronautical study is required as part of the Project.
See 49 USC 44718; 14 CFR Part 77; FAA Order JO 7400.2M.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 15 of 20
k. Based on the foregoing, the Project is consistent with AELUP's
height standards.
The ALUC has uncertain statements within its AELUP regarding who
has final authority in determining whether a building is an obstruction
or hazard. Each entity that has aviation safety duties and
responsibilities related to this matter relies on or ultimately defers to
the FAA's authoritative aviation safety role in airspace
determinations.
1) The AELUP for JWA, Section 2.1.3 Building Height
Restrictions states, "In adopting criteria for building height
restrictions in the vicinities of airports, the Commission
considered only one standard and that was Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77 ([14CFR] Part 77) entitled, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace. These regulations are the only
definitive standard available [emphasis added] and the
standard most generally used. In the aeronautical studies, the
FAA determines if a project is considered an Obstruction and
if a project is determined to be a Hazard to Air Navigation"
2) Section 2.1.3 also recognizes FAA aeronautical studies
beyond 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces as the standard for review,
"In addition to the `imaginary surfaces,' the Commission will
use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards along with the results
of FAA aeronautical studies, [emphasis added] or other
studies deemed necessary by the Commission, in order to
determine if a structure is an `obstruction."' This section goes
on to state: The Commission considers and recognizes the
FAA as the single "Authority" for analyzing project impact on
airport or aeronautical operations, or navigational -aid siting,
including interference with navigational- aids or published
flight paths and procedures. The Commission also considers
the FAA as the "Authority" for reporting the results of such
studies and project analyses. The Commission will not
consider the findings of reports or studies conducted by
parties other than the FAA unless the FAA certifies and adopts
such findings as true and correct.
3) This is in contradiction to Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP which
states: "A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does
not automatically equate to a Consistency determination by
the ALUC. The FAA may also conclude in their aeronautical
study that a project is an Obstruction but not a Hazard to Air
Navigation. The Commission may find a project Inconsistent
based on an Obstruction determination. The Commission may
utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at individual
airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77,
should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface
sufficient to justify such an action."
4) Neither the AELUP, nor the ALUC specify what their criteria
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 16 of 20
are for their determination, which may differ from the FAA's
determination.
5) Section 2.1.3 adds reference to FAA Advisory Circular
150/5190- 4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of
Objects Around Airports for Commission Review. This FAA
Advisory Circular provides specific guidance for establishing
zoning regulations along with specific guidance on a
"variance" process for potential obstructions. At Section 3.b.,
"The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts
aeronautical studies on obstructions which examine their
effect on such factors as: aircraft operational capabilities;
electronic and procedural requirements; and, airport hazard
standards. If an aeronautical study shows that an obstruction,
when evaluated against these factors, has no substantial
adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace, then the obstruction is considered not to be a hazard
to air navigation [emphasis added]."
6) FAA AC 150/5190-413, Airport Land Use Compatibility
Planning, references 14 CFR Part 77/Obstruction Evaluation
(OE) Processes and Surfaces, and the FAA's standards and
regulations that protect the nation's airspace: "14 CFR Part
77, `Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of Navigable
Airspace,' establishes standards for determining and defining
objects that may pose potential obstructions to air navigation.
14 CFR Part 77 was developed by the FAA to promote safety,
and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable
airspace. The airspace areas governed by 14 CFR Part 77 are
called `imaginary surfaces.'
7) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics — Caltrans publishes the
Handbook in accordance with State Law with the purpose to,
"provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors,
cities, counties, consultants, and the public; to identify the
requirements and procedures for preparing effective
compatibility planning documents; and define exemptions
where applicable (Caltrans, 2011)." The Handbook provides
specific guidance for assessing potential airspace
obstructions in Section 4.5 Airspace Protection.
8) JWA — The FAA requires airport sponsors like Orange
County to accept specific grant assurances when they
accept federal funding. Hazard Removal and Mitigation and
Compatible Land Use are two of these assurances (49 U.S.C.
§ 47107(a)(9) and (10)). For hazard removal, the Airport
relies on the FAA's aeronautical study to meet its
requirement. For compatible land use, the Airport relies on
coordination with the surrounding cities and the ALUC. The
following are the specific assurances:
(a) Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 17 of 20
action to assure that such terminal airspace as is
required to protect instrument and visual operations to
the airport (including established minimum flight
altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by
removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or
otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by
preventing the establishment or creation of future
airport hazards.
(i) The proposed Project would not result in
hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam,
smoke, dust, or electronic interference. Exterior
lighting fixtures and security lighting would be
installed in accordance with the City's Municipal
Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations,
which includes specifications for shielding and
intensity of security lighting. In addition, the
proposed Project would not use highly reflective
surfaces, and does not include large areas of
glass on the buildings. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not generate substantial sources
of glare.
(ii) Operation of the proposed residential and
commercial uses would not generate substantial
quantities of steam, smoke, or dust emissions.
Dust emissions are regulated by SCAQMD
requirements and construction related air quality
emissions that could include steam, smoke, and
dust emissions would be less than significant
with implementation of the standard SCAQMD
Rules.
(iii) The proposed Project would include the use of
typical electronics, such as computers,
televisions, and other electronics with wireless
capability. These types of electronics are
currently being used by the existing land uses
on the site, and other uses in the vicinity of the
site. The new residential and commercial uses
on the site would use similar technology that
does not cause electronic interference that
could affect aircraft. Thus, impacts related to
electronic interference with operations of JWA
would not occur.
(b) Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to
the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning
laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and
purposes compatible with normal airport operations,
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 18 of 20
including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if
the Project is for noise compatibility program
implementation, it will not cause or permit any change
in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its
compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise
compatibility program measures upon which Federal
funds have been expended.
M. If the ALUC does not agree with any FAA Determination, they can
petition the FAA.
1) As per 14 CFR Section 77.35 (a) "You may petition the FAA
official that issued the Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation to revise or reconsider the determination based on
new facts or to extend the effective period of the
determination, provided that: (1) Actual structural work of the
proposed construction or alteration, such as the laying of a
foundation, but not including excavation, has not been started;
and (2) The petition is submitted at least 15 days before the
expiration date of the Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation."
2) Further, and as per 14 CFR Section 77.37 (a) "If you are the
sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical comment on a
proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive
aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an
opportunity to state it, you may petition the FAA for a
discretionary review of a determination, revision, or extension
of a determination issued by the FAA."
4. Overflight. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" as identified by the
ALUC is neither an FAA nor an AELUP standard.
a. The FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data and
the FAA does not have a "close to the JWA approach centerline"
standard.
b. The AELUP clearly identifies its airport land use planning standards
around aircraft noise, safety, and height. Objective measures of
these standards are clearly identified in AELUP Section 2.1. The
Specific Plan is drafted to be consistent with each of these objective
standards.
C. Two-dimensional flight tracks do not inform the impact of overflights.
The ALUC provided limited arrival and departure flight tracks in its
ALUC staff report.
d. Aircraft noise contours used to objectively measure noise impact
already assume flight tracks and actual operating conditions for a full
year including future operations. Limited information presented
within the staff report packet dated June 19, 2025 of arrival flight
tracks and limited information on departure flight tracks are not
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 19 of 20
representative of a general condition and are not substantive
evidence.
e. The project is located outside of the JWA single event noise
exposure areas documented in the JWA General Aviation
Improvement Program EIR certified on June 25, 2019.
Heliports. Heliports are not a part of the Project.
5. Zone Change. The proposed zone change (amendment application) is
consistent with the objective AELUP aircraft noise, safety and height
standards and is therefore consistent with the larger planning role of the
ALUC. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" is not an FAA or an ALUC
standard.
a. There is no substantiation that overflights of new residents would be
disturbing or annoying to those new residents. The Project is located
outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. As such, the Project
would not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to
the JWA 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise
area.
b. Flight tracks limited information was provided in the ALUC staff
report. These flight tracks are not unique and are fully accounted for
in the one year of overflights used to measure CNEL noise impacts
associated with JWA GAIP EIR.
C. Flight tracks limited information for arrivals and departures, are not
unique and are fully accounted for in the single- event noise contours
produced for the JWA GAIP EIR. The Project is located outside of
these single -event noise contours. Per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for
JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare
of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the
continued operations of the airport. The method by which the ALUC
achieves this purpose is through the application of the objective
standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstrated
in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings, the Specific Plan and
application for each implementing project is and will be consistent
with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC has met their duty
under Section 1.2 by ensuring that the Specific Plan meets these
standards.
d. Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC Section
21674 charge the Commission to coordinate at the local level to
ensure compatible land use planning. The method by which the
ALUC achieves this charge is through the application of the objective
standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstrated
in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings, the Project is
consistent with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC has met
their duty under Section 2.1.4 and PUC Section 21674 by ensuring
that the Project meets these standards.
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Page 20 of 20
Exhibit 6 — Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), including the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) are
available:
Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/supplemental-
environmental-impact-report-the-village-santa-ana-specific-plan/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Or
Southwest Senior Center
2201 W. McFadden Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Exhibit 7 — The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan & Appendices
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) and associated appendices are available:
Online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-ana.org/specific-plan-the-
villaae-santa-ana/.
Physically at:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF:
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: )
City of Santa Ana )
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) )
Santa Ana, CA 92702 )
Attention: Clerk of the Council )
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code §27383
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2025-01
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF SANTA ANA
and
SOUTH COAST PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.2025-01
This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this IF day of,, ,
2025 by and between the City of Santa Ana, California ("City") on the one hand, and South Coast Plaza, a
California general partnership ("Owner" or "SCP"), on the other hand. City and Owner may be referred
to in this Agreement individually as a "party" or collective as the "parties."
RECITALS
A. City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or
equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section
65864, et seq. of the Government Code.
B. This Agreement constitutes a current exercise of City's police powers to provide predictability to
SCP in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use,
timing and phasing of development, and applicable ordinances consistent with the Development
Plan in exchange for SCP's commitment to provide significant public benefits to City as set forth
in Section 4 below.
C. SCP has requested that City enter into this Agreement and proceedings have been taken in
accordance with applicable State law and the rules and regulations of the City in furtherance
thereof.
D. The best interests of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and the public health, safety and
welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
E. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Agreement is of major significance
because it will provide significant economic benefit to the City through additional jobs created by
the construction and operation of the Project, property and sales tax revenue to the City,
infrastructure improvements, neighborhood revitalization, and general economic benefit.
F. The provision by SCP of the public benefits as set forth in Section 4 below allows the City to
realize significant economic, recreational, open space, educational, social, and other public
benefits to City. These public benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of Santa Ana
residents and visitors to a significantly greater extent than would development of the Property
without this Agreement.
G. The physical effects, if any, of the Project and this Agreement have been analyzed pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act as amended to date and as documented in the Final
Environmental Impact Report entitled "Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. XXXXX) and City of Santa Ana DP No.
("Project FEIR").
H. This Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Santa Ana General Plan.
I. All actions taken and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance
with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other
procedural matters.
Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits
to City, as set forth in Section 4 below, and as stated Sections 1.4 and Appendix B of the Specific
Plan and will further important policies and goals of City.
K. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development
of the Property, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and
generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Section 65864, et sec . of
the Government Code are intended.
L. On July 15, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and authorized the City's Planning
Division to draft findings and issue a determination overruling the County of Orange Airport
Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency associated with the Project and to
provide notice of same in accordance with Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code to the
County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission and the State of California Department of
Transportation's Division of Aeronautics.
M. On August 11, 2025, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement,
made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City
Council that the City Council approve this Agreement.
N. On September 16, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing introducing this Agreement and
considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and information
submitted by City staff, SCP, and members of the public. On DATE consistent with applicable
provisions of State law and the rules and regulations of the City, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. NS- finding this Agreement consistent with the City's General Plan and
approving and adopting this Agreement.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, City and Owner hereby agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.
1.1. Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement (including in the recitals
above) shall be defined as follows:
I.I.I. "Assigned Rights" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.2. "Assignment and Assumption Agreement" has the meaning set forth in Section
2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.3. "Assumed Obligations" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.4. "Agreement" means this Development Agreement.
1.1.5. "City" means the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and California municipal
corporation.
1.1.6. "City Attorney" means the City of Santa Ana City Attorney.
1.1.7. "City Council" means the duly elected city council of the City of Santa Ana.
1.1.8. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of
completing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project including, but not
limited to: grading; construction of infrastructure and other public facilities; construction of
buildings and structures; installation of landscaping consistent with this Agreement.
"Development" does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of
any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof.
1.1.9. "Development Impact Fee" means a monetary exaction other than a tax or
special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general
applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local
agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but
does not include fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or
approvals.
1.1.10. "Development Plan" means the plan for development of the Property pursuant to
the Project Approvals as set forth in Exhibit "C."
1.1.11. "Development Project Review Approvals" refers to the administrative review of
all projects meeting the requirements of Division 3 of Article V of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code as may be required by the Project Approvals.
1.1.12. "Discretionary Action" or "Discretionary Approval" means an action that
requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or discretion on the part of the City, including
any board, agency, commission, or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the
process of approving or disapproving Development of the Project, as distinguished from an
activity that is defined herein as a Ministerial Permit or Ministerial Approval (i.e., Development
Project Review Approvals).
1.1.13. "Effective Date" means the date the ordinance approving and authorizing this
Agreement becomes effective.
1.1.14. "Executive Director" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1 hereof.
1.1.15. "Existing Land Use Regulations" means the Land Use Regulations that are in
effect on the Effective Date, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866.
1.1.16. "Existing Project Approvals" means all Project Approvals approved or issued
on or before the Effective Date.
1.1.17. "Future Project Approvals" means Project Approvals for the Project that are
adopted, approved, or issued after the Effective Date.
1.1.18. "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, laws, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other actions of City, including but not limited
to the provisions set forth in the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, that affect, govern, or
apply to the Development of the Project and use of the Property in a manner consistent with this
Agreement, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of
use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the
Property, subject to the terms of this Agreement, whether adopted by the City Council or the
voters in an initiative. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any City ordinance, resolution,
code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) taxes (special or general) and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and
interests that provide for the use or the entry upon public property;
(e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.1.19. "Owner" means the persons and entities listed as Owner on page 1 of this
Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.
1.1.20. "Ministerial Approval," or "Ministerial Act" means the nondiscretionary permits,
plans, inspections, certificates, documents and licenses required to be taken, issued, or approved
by the City in order for Owner to develop the Project, including, without limitation, building
permits, grading permits, Development Project Review Approvals, and other similar permits and
approvals. Any approval or act that is not a Discretionary Approval is a Ministerial Approval.
1.1.21. "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of
trust or any other security -device lender, and their successors and assigns.
1.1.22. "Project" means the development of the Property, as more specifically described
in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B," pursuant to the Project Approvals and the
Development Plan, as such Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced, or modified
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
1.1.23. "Project Open Space" means the approximately 7.5 acres of publicly accessible
open -space areas, as defined in the Specific Plan, to be maintained by Owner.
1.1.24. "Project Phase" shall mean a portion of the development of the Property as
contemplated by the Project Approvals. To avoid confusion, a "Project Phase" may include one
or more Development phases and shall not be limited to any single Specific Plan Phase and may
consist of a portion of a Specific Plan Phase.
1.1.25. "Project Approvals" means all site -specific (meaning specifically applicable to
the Project only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within the City)
plans, maps, permits, entitlements, approvals (including Development Project Review
Approvals), and entitlements of every kind and nature that are sought or agreed to in writing by
Owner in its sole and absolute discretion for Development of the Project and that are approved
by the City. Project Approvals include, but are not limited to, general plan amendments, specific
plan approvals or amendments, site plans, development project review approvals, tentative and
final subdivision maps, design guidelines, variances, zoning designations, conditional use
permits, grading, building, and other similar permits, the site -specific provisions of general
plans, environmental assessments, including environmental impact reports and negative
declarations. A list of the Project Approvals is set forth in Exhibit "C."
1.1.26. "Property" means the real property described in Exhibit "A" and shown in
Exhibit `B" to this Agreement. The Property is approximately 17.2 gross acres in size and is
occupied by the South Coast Plaza Village commercial development as of the Effective Date. It
is composed of seven parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-
131-21, 412-451-01, 412-451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04.
1.1.27. "Public Benefit" refers to those benefits provided to the City and the community
by Owner pursuant to Section 4 below.
1.1.28. "Reservation of Rights" means the rights and authority excepted from the
assurances and rights provided to Owner under this Agreement and reserved to City under
Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.1.29. "Specific Plan Phase" means any one of the five phases as shown on Figure 6-1
(Conceptual Phasing Plan) of the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan.
1.1.30. "Term" has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.4.1 below.
1.2. Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of,
this Agreement:
Exhibit "A" — Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit "B" — Map showing Property and its location
Exhibit "C" — Development Plan and list of Project Approvals
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
2.1. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement.
Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the
terms of the Development Plan, the Project Approvals, and this Agreement. This Agreement
shall be recorded against the Property.
2.2. Ownership of Property. Owner represents and covenants that it is the Owner of the fee
simple title to, or has an equitable interest in, the Property or a portion thereof.
2.3. City Council Findings. The City Council finds that:
2.3.1. This Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan.
2.3.2. This Agreement ensures a desirable and functional community environment,
provides effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
appropriate for the development of the Project, and enhances effective utilization of resources
within the City.
2.3.3. This Agreement provides public benefits beyond those that are necessary to
mitigate the development of the Project, as set forth in Section 4 below.
2.3.4. This Agreement strengthens the public planning process, encourages private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reduces costs of development and government.
2.3.5. The best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety, and
welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
2.4. Term.
2.4.1. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years thereafter (the "Initial Term"), unless modified
or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Together, the Initial Term and any
extension under this Agreement shall constitute the "Term." The Term, including all possible
extensions, shall not exceed twenty -five -years unless this Agreement is amended to allow further
extensions. Owner shall execute this Agreement which shall be recorded against the Property no
later than ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -executed, recordable Agreement
from the City.
(a) It is anticipated that Parties will sign the Development Agreement upon
approval of the Agreement by the City Council. Owner shall cause this Agreement to be timely
recorded against the Property no later than ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -
executed, recordable Agreement from the City.
(b) Failure of Owner to record this Agreement against the Property within
ten (10) days following the receipt of the fully -executed, recordable Agreement from the City
shall constitute an event of default by Owner under this Agreement.
2.4.2. The Initial Term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended by up to five
(5) years if Owner achieves the following milestones: construction has commenced on: (i) no
less than 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor area; and (ii) 360 residential dwelling
units.
2.4.3. If Owner fails to satisfy the prerequisites to securing the automatic extension, the
City Council may nonetheless elect, in its sole discretion, to grant one or more extensions if
Owner provides the City with a plan that includes a Development timeline and specific
Development milestones.
2.4.4. When the Term ends, Owner shall have no vested right under this Agreement,
regardless of whether or not Owner has paid City any Development Impact Fee.
2.4.5. If any party other than Owner initiates litigation that challenges the Project, this
Agreement (and/or the ordinance approving this Agreement), or any of the Existing Project
Approvals, the Owner will have the right to toll commencement of the Term, except for the duty
to record this Agreement within ten (10) days of receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City, and any obligations of Owner under this Agreement during the period
of such litigation. The tolling shall commence upon receipt by the City of written notice from
Owner invoking this right to tolling. The tolling shall terminate when the action, including any
appeal, is finally resolved, whether by entry of a final, non -appealable judgment that upholds the
Project and the Existing Project Approvals or voluntary or involuntary dismissal of the entire
action (and the passage of time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal) by the moving party.
Owner shall similarly have the right to toll commencement of the Term, except for the duty to
record this Agreement within ten (10) days of receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City, and any obligations of Owner under the Agreement in the event a
referendum petition challenging the Project, the ordinance approving this Agreement, or any of
the Project Approvals is submitted to the City Clerk. The tolling shall terminate if and when: (1)
the City Clerk determines the referendum petition did not receive sufficient signatures to qualify
for the ballot; or (2) the election results of the referendum uphold the Project and the Existing
Project Approvals and are certified by the City Council. This Agreement shall be null and of no
further force and effect in the event that the City Council rescinds the challenged action.
2.5. Assignment.
2.5.1. Right to Sell, Transfer, or Assign. Owner shall have the right, from time to time,
to sell, transfer, or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer
shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person,
partnership, joint venture, firm, limited liability company, or corporation and, in connection
therewith, to assign its rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part, to said person,
partnership, joint venture, firm, limited liability company (collectively, the "Assigned Rights")
at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or
assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations
arising under or from this Agreement that pertain to the Project Phase[s] that is the subject of
such transfer, and be made in compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement (in whole or in part) shall be made unless made together with the transfer of all or a
part of the Property, to which such rights or interests apply.
(b) In connection with any such assignment of an Owner's rights and
obligations under this Agreement (in whole or in part), Owner shall notify City in writing at least
sixty (60 days) in advance of any sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide City with a draft
assignment and assumption agreement ("Assignment and Assumption Agreement"), in a form
reasonably satisfactory to City, to be entered into by Owner, such assignee, and the City, pursuant
to the terms of which such assignee shall expressly and unconditionally assume those duties,
obligations, agreements, covenants, and waivers of Owner under this Agreement that are
applicable to the Project Phase that is the subject of the portion of the Property, as applicable,
being transferred, including, without limitation, the covenants not to sue and waivers contained in
Sections 7.3.1 and 9.5.1 hereof (collectively, the "Assumed Obligations"). Notwithstanding the
failure of any assignee to execute the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, as required by
Section 2.5.1(b) above, the burdens of this Agreement (as they relate to the Project Phase that is
the subject of the Property being transferred) shall be binding upon such transferee, but the
benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such transferee unless the Assignment and
Assumption Agreement is executed.
(c) The Executive Director for the Planning and Building Agency (the
"Executive Director") shall have the administrative authority to approve of the Assignment and
Assumption Agreement and to determine whether Owner has complied with the above
conditions, which approval and determination shall not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned.
The Executive Director shall use best efforts to approve of the Assignment and Assumption
Agreement and to determine whether the Owner has complied with the above conditions within
five (5) business days following receipt of Owner's written request. The Executive Director's
failure to approve or disapprove the foregoing within thirty (30) days following the Executive
Directors receipt of Owner's written request shall constitute City's approval of the same.
2.5.2. No Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or
assignment as provided in any Assignment and Assumption Agreement delivered in accordance
with the provisions of Section 2.5.1 above, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated to
comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement (and such transferring
Owner shall not be released from any of such obligations) with respect to the transferred
Property, or any transferred portion thereof, as applicable, and following any such transfer the
transferring Owner and the transferee under the Assignment and Assumption Agreement shall be
jointly and severally liable with respect to all of the obligations assumed by such transferee
under such Assignment and Assumption Agreement.
2.6. Administrative Changes and Modifications.
2.6.1. Owner and City acknowledge that further planning and development of the
Project may demonstrate that refinements and changes are appropriate with respect to the details
and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain
degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Project development and with respect to
those items covered in general terms under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Existing
Land Use Regulations, and, once issued, any Future Project Approvals.
2.6.2. If and when the parties find that "Substantially Conforming Changes," as herein
defined, are necessary, desirable or appropriate, they may, unless otherwise required by law,
effectuate such changes or adjustments through an administrative operating memorandum that is
executed by Owner and the Executive Director of the City's Planning and Building Agency or
the Director's designee. As used herein, a "Substantially Conforming Change" is a minor
change, modification, or adjustment that is deemed to be in substantial conformance with the
Development Plan at the City's sole and absolute discretion. The following are excluded from
the definition of "Substantially Conforming Changes": (1) changes to the In -Lieu Fee; and (2)
changes to the Project Open Space. A Substantially Conforming Change is not considered an
amendment to this Agreement or to Development Plan and so does not require prior notice or
hearing by the Planning Commission or City Council.
2.7. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Except for Substantially Conforming
Changes as defined by Section 2.6.2 above, this Agreement may be amended or modified from
time to time only with the written consent of Owner and the City or their successors and assigns,
and only upon approval of an amendment by the City Council after a public hearing in
accordance with Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not limit any remedy of
City or Owner as provided by this Agreement.
2.8. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon
the occurrence of any of the following events:
2.8.1. Expiration of the stated Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4,
including any extension(s).
2.8.2. Entry of a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction setting aside,
voiding, or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement and/or any Project
Approvals as set forth in Exhibit C.
2.8.3. The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the ordinance
approving this Agreement and/or any Project Approvals. In the event a referendum petition
challenging the ordinance approving this Agreement and/or any Project Approvals is submitted
to the City Clerk, Owner shall deposit with the City Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) ("Petition
Deposit") to cover the actual cost incurred by the City examining the petition and verifying
signatures. Should the referendum qualify for the ballot, Owner may request, at or prior to the
Council meeting at which the Council will take up the referendum issue, that the City Council
repeal the ordinance and/or any Project Approvals rather than submitting it to the voters. If
Owner does not request that the City Council repeal the ordinance and/or any Project Approvals
and the City Council submits the referendum to the voters, Owner shall deposit Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) ("Referendum Deposit") with the City. City may use the Referendum Deposit
to pay any and all costs associated with the said referendum measure (e.g., legal fees for outside
counsel). Any funds remaining in the Petition Deposit may be put toward the Referendum
Deposit at the Owner's request. If at any time the Referendum Deposit account has Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or less remaining, Owner shall, within three (3) business days of
receiving notice from the City, deposit with the City Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)
as requested by the City to cover necessary costs and expenses associated with the referendum
and holding the related election. Following certification of the election results, any funds
remaining in the Petition Deposit or the Referendum Deposit account shall be returned to the
Owner within thirty (30) days of certification of the election results. In the event Owner
requests that the City Council repeal the ordinance and the City Council nonetheless determines
to submit the ordinance to the voters, Owner shall have no financial responsibility for the costs
associated with holding the election, including any obligation to make a Referendum Deposit.
2.8.4. Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, which
is hereby defined to be: (i) issuance by the City of all required occupancy permits and final
approvals for occupancy for the Project's 1,583 multi -family residential units, 80,000 square
feet of commercial uses, and 300,000 square feet of office space. (ii) acceptance by City or
applicable public agency of all required dedications in connection with same; and (iii) written
notification by City to Owner that the Project is complete.
2.8.5. Termination of the Agreement as provided under this Agreement, including but
not limited to Section 7.4 herein, shall not constitute termination of any other Project Approvals.
Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation
hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such
termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement
that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations that are specifically
set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any Development Impact Fees
paid by Owner to City on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to Owner by
City.
2.9. Notices.
2.9.1. As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the
communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent,
waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder.
2.9.2. All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when
delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the
return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and
addressed to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:
If to City:
City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
PO Box 1988 M-30
Santa Ana, Ca 82702
Copies to:
City Manager
City Attorney
Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
If to Owner:
Justin McCusker
C.J. Segerstrom and Sons
3315 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
McCuskerJ@southcoastplaza.com
Copies to:
Spencer Kallick
Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory, & Natsis, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
skallick@allenmatkins.com
2.9.3. Either party may, by written notice given at any time, require subsequent notices
to be given to another person or entity, whether a parry or an officer or representative of a parry,
or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall
not be invalidated by the change.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
3.1. Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including the Reservation of
Rights in Section 3.3 below, Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in
accordance with, and to the extent of, this Agreement, and the Project Approvals, and the
Development Plan for the duration of the Term. Owner may proceed with demolition permits
prior to pulling building permits provided Owner has provided proof of financing for that portion
of the Project that demolition permits are being sought for. From the commencement of
demolition until issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Owner shall ensure that the Property is
secured and that all construction walls are maintained in a good condition and repair with no
graffiti.
3.1.1. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, the Project shall remain subject to
all Existing Land Use Regulations and Project Approvals for the Term. Except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, and notwithstanding the authority of the City to further revise the
Land Use Regulations pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, the permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings,
and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth
in the Existing Land Use Regulations and Project Approvals.
3.1.2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any subdivision map
approved which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i)
the Term of this Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6.
3.1.3. Owner shall comply with all mitigation measures required to be undertaken
pursuant to any document prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act with respect to the Project.
3.1.4. Notwithstanding Section 3.1.1 above, Owner acknowledges and agrees that the
Project requires additional Project Approvals (the Future Project Approvals identified in Section
1.1.17). These Future Project Approvals shall be consistent with the Existing Project Approvals
and this Agreement as to the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the
maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication
of land for public purposes; however, the Future Project Approvals may include additional
conditions that are lawful and appropriate to the type of Project Approval.
3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the
terms of this Agreement, including the Reservation of Rights in Section 3.3 below, the rules,
regulations and official policies governing, inter alia, permitted uses and Development of the
Property, the density and intensity of use and of the Property, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to development of the Property, shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations and
Project Approvals. In connection with any subsequent Project Approvals and except as
specifically provided otherwise herein, City may exercise its discretion as set forth in Section
3.3.2.
3.2.1. City shall reasonably strive to complete:
(a) its initial review of individual development projects within 30 days after
the application is deemed complete,
(b) any second plan review within 15 days after submission, and
(c) any third plan review within 10 days after submission.
3.2.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City does not guarantee that the timelines
above will be met, and failure to meet these timelines does not constitute a default.
3.2.3. To help ensure expedited review of its development approvals, Owner may elect
to pay for City to use a contract planner. City agrees to retain a contract planner to expedite
review, if Owner so elects.
3.3. Reservation of Rights.
3.3.1. Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Agreement, the following are not Existing Land Use Regulations, but shall apply to the
development of the Property as they are in effect at the time of application for Development
Project Review Approvals, provided such regulations and/or fees (as applicable) are not
designed in a manner such that they are applicable only, to the Project and/or Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by City to
cover the actual costs to City of processing applications for Project Approvals or for monitoring
compliance with any Project Approvals granted or issued.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications,
notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of
procedure, provided that such procedural regulations do not conflict with the Project Approvals.
(c) Regulations, policies, and rules governing engineering and construction
standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including, without
limitation, all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes
adopted by the City, including, without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code,
Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and Grading Ordinance.
(d) Regulations that are in material conflict with this Agreement but that are
reasonably necessary to protect the residents of the Project or the immediate community from a
condition perilous to their health or safety. To the maximum extent possible, any such regulations
shall be applied and construed so as to provide Owner with the rights and assurances provided
under this Agreement.
(e) Regulations that are not in material conflict with this Agreement or the
Development Plan. For avoidance of doubt, any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or
otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to
materially conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the
development of the Property.
(f) Regulations that are in material conflict with the Development Plan;
provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to Development
of the Property.
(g) Regulations that impose, levy, alter or amend fees, or charges relating to
consumers or end users, including, without limitation, trash can placement, service charges and
limitations on vehicle parking.
(h) Regulations of other public agencies, including Development Impact
Fees adopted or imposed by such other public agencies, although collected by City.
3.3.2. Subsequent Project Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent City from
exercising its rights under Government Code Section 65866 when acting on subsequent Project
Approvals provided that such City actions do not materially conflict with this Agreement, the
Development Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations, and/or the Project Approvals.
3.3.3. Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State,
County or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement,
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply
with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations
and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to
enforce.
3.3.4. Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to
limit certain aspects of its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations,
reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power that cannot be
or are not expressly so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if
necessary, to reserve to City all such power and authority that cannot be or is not by this
Agreement's express terms so restricted.
3.4. Regulation by Other Public Agencies. n�. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public
agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the
development of the Property separately from or jointly with City and this Agreement does not
limit the authority of such other public agencies.
3.5. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee
Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that
case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the
timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the specific intent of the parties
to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the parties acknowledge and
provide that Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such
order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub -phases as Owner
deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment, except for the following:
3.5.1. No building permits for residential units shall be issued in excess of 360
residential units unless and until Owner obtains building permits for at least 50,000 square feet
of commercial development. Owner may construct commercial square footage beyond 50,000
square feet if and when such additional commercial development is supported by market
conditions, as determined by Owner in its sole discretion. Owner understands that commercial
development is a priority to the City and agrees to exercise its discretion in good faith.
3.6. Moratoria. Except as specifically set forth in this section, City agrees that to the extent
permitted by law, no moratorium or other similar limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing,
or sequencing of the development of the Project or any part thereof and whether or not enacted by
local initiative or otherwise) affecting subdivision maps, grading or building permits, occupancy
certificates, or other entitlements approved, issued, or granted within the City, after the Effective
Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the
provisions hereof shall not preclude the application to the Project of a moratorium or other similar
limitation (of the type described in the preceding sentence) enacted in order to protect an
imminent threat to the public health or safety.
3.7. Development Agreement/Project Approvals. In the event of any inconsistency between
any Existing Land Use Regulation and a Project Approval, the provisions of the Project Approval
shall control. In the event of any inconsistency between any Existing Land Use Regulation or
Project Approval and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
4. PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SAFETY BENEFITS.
4.1. Public Benefits. The Project is expected to bring significant fiscal benefits to the City.
The Project will also serve to implement the City's General Plan vision for the Property, which
has long been designated as a District Center where intense mixed -use development is
encouraged. In addition, Owner has committed by this Agreement to contribute the public and
community safety benefits, as provided below.
4.2. Community Benefits.
4.2.1. Project Community Benefit Package. The Project will provide significant
economic benefit to the City through additional jobs created by the construction and operation of
the Project, property and sales tax revenue to the City, infrastructure improvements,
neighborhood revitalization, and general economic benefit. In addition, Owner has agreed to
provide the City with a Nine Million Three Hundred Thousand dollar ($9,300,000) payment
("Community Benefit Payment"), which Community Benefit Payment shall be allocated at the
City's sole discretion. The Community Benefit Payment shall be paid to City by Owner pursuant
to the following schedule: (1) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($2,500,000) prior to
or concurrent with the issuance of the first demolition permit in furtherance of the Project's first
Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 1"); (2) Three Million Six Hundred
Thousand dollars ($3,600,000) concurrent with the issuance of the first building permit in
furtherance of the Project's second Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 2");
(3) One Million Three Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,300,000) concurrent with the issuance of
the first building permit in furtherance of the Project's third Specific Plan Phase ("Community
Benefit Payment No. 3"); and (4) One Million Nine Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,900,000)
concurrent with the issuance of the first building permit in furtherance of the Project's fourth
Specific Plan Phase ("Community Benefit Payment No. 4"). If the City has not received
Community Benefit Payment No. 2 on or before the date that is 36 months and one day from the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the first Specific Plan Phase, then Community
Benefit Payment No. 2 shall accrue simple interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum until
such time as it is paid to the City. If the City has not received Community Benefit Payment No.
3 on or before the date that is 36 months and one day from the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the second Specific Plan Phase, then Community Benefit No. 3 shall accrue
simple interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum until such time as it is paid to the City. If
the City has not received Community Benefit Payment No. 4 on or before the date that is 36
months and one date from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the third Specific
Plan Phase, then Community Benefit No. 4 shall accrue simple interest at a rate of five percent
(5%) per annum until such time as it is paid to the City. Developer may commence construction
of the Specific Plan Phases in any order. Notwithstanding the Specific Plan Phase order,
Community Benefit Payment No. 1 shall be paid prior to or concurrent with the issuance of the
first demolition permit in furtherance of any Specific Plan Phase.
4.2.2. Project Open Space. In accordance with the Specific Plan, Owner shall
construct, own, and maintain the Project Open Space.
(a) Owner shall design the Project Open Space to promote biodiversity,
extend thermal comfort, and to promote biophilic design, health, and wellness.
(b) Owner shall provide a total minimum of two (2) free on -site events per
year for the general public (e.g., concerts or farmers markets) including programming on
sustainability and wellness, subject to Force Majeure events, as follows: a minimum of two (2)
free events per year shall be provided commencing one year after the completion of Specific Plan
Phase One as set forth in section 6.3.10 of the Specific Plan. Owner's obligation under this
Section shall terminate after 25 years after the commencement of the first free on -site event or
upon termination of this Agreement whichever occurs later.
(c) Owner shall record one or more open space easements against the
Property for the benefit of the City concurrent with the recordation of the subdivision maps that
implement a given Project Phase or Development phase, as contemplated by the Project
Approvals.
(d) City shall provide Owner a credit against its park and open space fee
obligations (e.g., Park Acquisition and Development Fee) for the hard and soft cost of all land,
improvements, construction, operation, and maintenance associated with the Project Open Space.
In the event the Project Open Space is less than 7.5 acres, Owner must satisfy any required park
and recreation fees or other obligations (including those specified in Chapter 35, Article IV of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code) for the amount of the acreage shortfall as calculated by the City.
4.2.3. Construction Standards.
(a) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The Project
shall be constructed to a minimum LEED Silver standard, as established by the U.S. Green
Building Council.
(b) Water Conservation. The Project shall include high -efficiency irrigation,
native drought -tolerant plantings, low -flow plumbing fixtures, and Energy Star equipment and
appliances.
(c) Electric Vehicle ("EV") Parking. No less than 5% of all structured
parking stalls in the Project shall be equipped with EV chargers. No less than 10% of all parking
stalls located within the parking structures shall be EV ready with sufficient electrical
infrastructure to enable the future installation of EV conduit and chargers.
(d) Signage Program. Owner shall implement a signage program to promote
mass transit, provide ride -share infrastructure & bike/e-mobility facilities.
(e) Electrical Appliances: All individual residential units within the Project
shall utilize electric or induction stoves, ovens, and clothing dryers. This obligation shall not
apply to commercial, common area, or other non-residential uses.
(f) Photovoltaic Panels: The Project shall incorporate photovoltaic panels on
all residential components of the Project
5. HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE.
5.1. Owner Exemption. During the Term of this Agreement, as such Term may be extended,
Consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1903(a), Owner is exempt from Santa Ana
Municipal Code Article XVIII.I inclusionary housing requirements (i.e., the Affordable Housing
and Opportunity Ordinance) because Owner is entering into this Agreement. In lieu of
compliance with Article XVIII.I, Owner commits to the In -Lieu Fee as set forth in Section 5.1.1,
below, which may be paid at the time of building permit issuance for each market rate residential
unit contemplated by a given building permit or in the aggregate, at Owner's sole discretion. In -
Lieu fees paid in excess of the requirements for a particular building permit may be accrued and
used by Owner to satisfy future in lieu fee requirements. Upon expiration or termination of this
Agreement, Owner shall be subject to Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XVIII.I for any unit that
has not received a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.1.1. In -Lieu Fee. Owner shall make an in -lieu fee payment at the time of building
permit issuance for each market rate residential unit contemplated by the building permit equal
to five dollars ($5.00) per habitable square foot of each market rate residential unit.
6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
6.1. Periodic Review.
6.1.1. The City shall review this Agreement annually, on or before DATE , and
annually thereafter until the expiration of this Agreement, in order to ascertain the compliance
by Owner with the terms of this Agreement ("Annual Review"). Owner shall timely submit an
Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the City Manager on or before the first
anniversary of the Effective Date and annually thereafter until the expiration of this Agreement.
If the Annual Review is not submitted within thirty (30) days after written notice from the City
Manager, then Owner shall be in breach of this Agreement. The failure of the City to conduct the
Annual Review shall not constitute a default by Owner. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be
accompanied by an "Annual Review and Administration Fee" sufficient to defray the estimated
costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of
the Annual Review and Administration Fee" shall be set annually by resolution of the City
Council.
6.1.2. The Annual Review shall include a progress report on the status of the
implementation of the Project and the new tax revenue generated by the Project, including, but
not limited to, the following:
(a) Development and construction progress of the following uses and Project
components:
(i)
Site development
(ii)
Public infrastructure,
(iii)
Project design features,
(iv)
Community benefits,
(v)
Plaza,
(vi)
Residential,
(vii)
Commercial,
(viii)
Office
(ix)
Parking
(x)
Philanthropic activities (education, culture, arts)
(b) Reporting for items listed in Section 6.1.2(a) shall be include a table
substantially similar to the following:
An example of a compliance report for site development and can be applied to other above criteria and metrics.
Reporting Period: 2026 —1st Report
Year 1 of 20 of Agreement
Use
Approved
Total
Cumulative
Remaining to
Status & Look Ahead
SF/Units/Rooms
Completed In
Total
Be
Period
Completed
Completed
Residential
1,583
100
200
1,383
On target with 300 to be
completed in the next period
Commercial
380,000
150,000
150,000
230,000
150k completed for Tenant X.
New
20-Year lease.
Retail
80,000
50,000
50,000
30,000
Negotiating with Tenant Y for a
Office
300,000
100,000
100,000
200,000
15 year lease.
(c) Progress relative to economic projections of
(i)
Increases in property tax,
(ii)
Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF received by the City,
(iii)
Sales tax received from the Project,
(iv)
Business tax received from the Project,
(v) Utility User Tax received from the Project,
(d) Reporting for items listed in Section 6.1.2(c) shall be include a table,
prepared by Owner with City's cooperation, substantially similar to the following:
Reporting Period: 2026 —
Year 1 of 20 of Agreement
Revenue
Total for Period
Cumulative to
Percentage
Status & Look Ahead
date
increase over
2018 Base
Year
Property Tax
Property Tax
In -Lieu of
VLF
Sales Tax
Business
Tax
Franchise
Tax
UUT
6.2. Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this
Agreement at any time commencing one year following the issuance of the Project's first building
permit, but not more than once during any 12-month period. The City Manager, or his or her
designee, shall conduct such special reviews.
6.3. Review Procedure.
6.3.1. During either an Annual Review or a special review, Owner shall be required to
demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The burden of proof on
this issue shall be on Owner.
6.3.2. Upon completion of an Annual Review or a special review, the City Manager,
or the City Manager's designee, shall submit a receive and file report to the Planning
Commission if he or she finds that Owner is in good -faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. If the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, finds on the basis of
reasonable evidence that Owner is not in good -faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, he or she shall set the matter for hearing before the Planning Commission and shall
submit a report setting forth said evidence concerning compliance by Owner with the terms of
this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.
6.3.3. If the Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence that
Owner is in good -faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement, it shall confirm same and
formally conclude the review by resolution. If the Planning Commission finds and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement:
(a) The Planning Commission shall provide written notice to Owner of such
findings setting forth the nature of the problem and the actions, if any, required of Owner to cure
such problem.
(b) If the problem can be cured and Owner fails to take such actions and cure
such problem within sixty (60) days after of the effective date of the Planning Commission's
notice or, in the event that such problem cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but
can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such
problem within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and
cure such problem, then the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council
modification or termination of this Agreement.
(c) Owner may appeal a Planning Commission determination pursuant to
this Section 6.3.3 pursuant to City's rules for consideration of appeals in zoning matters then in
effect. If a Planning Commission determination is appealed, any cure ordered by the Planning
Commission shall be tolled until a decision is reached by the City Council on the appeal. Notice
of default as provided under Section 7 of this Agreement shall be given to such Owner prior to or
concurrent with proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
6.4. Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3,
City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, City shall give
written notice to Owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten (10)
calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
6.4.1. The time and place of the hearing;
6.4.2. A statement as to whether or not City proposes to terminate or to modify this
Agreement; and,
6.4.3. Such other information that the City considers necessary to inform Owner of the
nature of the proceeding.
6.5. Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on
modification or termination, Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Owner shall be
required to demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner. If the City Council finds, based upon
substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of
this Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or, in lieu of termination and
with the consent of Owner, modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably
necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
6.6. Certificate of Agreement Compliance.
6.6.1. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, Owner is found to be in
compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by Owner, issue a Certificate of
Agreement Compliance ("Certificate") to Owner stating that after the most recent Periodic or
Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and
City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect; and (2) Owner is not in default. The
Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate
constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is
issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement
of the next Periodic Review. Owner may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.
6.6.2. Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or
Owner, City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or
Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City Manager or City
Council.
6.7. Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed as conditions of any
discretionary approval received through the City's existing regulatory process shall be
governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no event shall such conditions be affected
by the termination, cancellation, rescission, revocation, or default or expiration of this
Development Agreement (although such conditions must comply with the Applicable Rules).
7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
7.1. Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that City and Owner would not
have entered into this Agreement if either party were to be liable in damages arising out of a
breach or default under this Agreement and, therefore, each of the parties hereto hereby
acknowledge and agree that the sole remedies that either party hereto may pursue and enforce
against the other arising out of a default or breach under this Agreement by the other party (and
the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods) shall be an action for specific
performance or a termination of this Agreement by such non -defaulting parry's obligations under
this Agreement (subject to the terms and provisions of Section 6.3.3), and each party hereto
expressly waives any other remedy they might otherwise be entitled to pursue, at law or in equity,
against the other, and each party hereto expressly waives any right to sue the other for damages or
claim any damages.
7.2. Release.
7.2.1. Except for specific performance, Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees,
hereby releases City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands,
actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. Owner
hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which is set forth below:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST
IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND
THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED
HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.."
By initialing below, Owner hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection
with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases.
Owner's Initials
7.2.2. Except for specific performance, City, for itself, its successors and assignees,
hereby releases Owner, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands,
actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. City
hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which is set forth below:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST
IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND
THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED
HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.."
By initialing below, City hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection
with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases.
City's Initials
7.3. Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of an Owner. City may terminate
or modify this Agreement for any failure of Owner to perform any material duty or obligation of
Owner under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as "default"); provided, however, City may terminate or modify this
Agreement pursuant to this Section 7.3 only after providing written notice to Owner of default
setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Owner to cure such
default and, where the default can be cured Owner has failed to take such actions and cure such
default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such
default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time,
has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day
period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.
7.3.1. No Cross Default. Parties agree and acknowledges that, notwithstanding anything
stated to the contrary in this Agreement: (a) the failure of SCP to comply with or satisfy any of
SCP's obligations under this Agreement shall not limit or impair a transferee's rights and benefits
under this Agreement with respect to its Assigned Rights (as they apply to the Project Phase
owned by such transferee) under Section 2.5.1 of this Agreement and (b) the failure of any
transferee to satisfy such transferee's Assumed Obligations as provided for under Section 2.5.1 of
this Agreement shall not, as to the Project Phase to which those Assumed Obligations apply,
limit or impair any of the Assigned Rights of any other transferee as to the Project Phase owned
by such other transferee.
7.4. Voluntary Termination of Agreement by SCP. In the event SCP determines, in its sole
discretion, prior to issuance of the first demolition permit implementing the first Specific Plan
Phase, that it no longer wishes to proceed with the Project pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, SCP may terminate this Agreement by providing the City with 30 days written
notice. Notwithstanding this or other provisions herein, SCP's indemnity and defense obligations
shall survive such termination for the later of twelve (12) months or expiration of the statute of
limitations on any and all potential causes of action against the City as set forth in Section 8 of
this Agreement.
7.5. Notice and Cure Rights. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this
Agreement, City shall have no right to terminate any of the rights of any Owner under this
Agreement unless such Owner has failed to cure any default under this Agreement giving rise to
any such termination right within the cure periods expressly provided for above in this Section 7.
8. LITIGATION
8.1. Third-PartLitigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense,
including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees
from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, any document prepared for the Project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or the approval of any permit or
entitlement granted pursuant to this Agreement for the Project. City shall promptly notify Owner
of any claim, action, proceeding or determination included within this Section 8.1 no later than
fourteen (14) business days and City's receipt of service of process and City shall cooperate in the
defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, proceeding or
determination as required by this Section, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall
not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City as to that claim, action,
proceeding, or determination. City may in its discretion participate in the defense.
8.2. Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and
employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of
Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors,
assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance
or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the
Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend,
at its expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action
based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in
the defense.
8.3. Reservation of Rights. With respect to Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 herein, City reserves,
the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) that the indemnifying party selects, hires or
otherwise engages to defend the indemnified party hereunder, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed; or (2) conduct its own defense; provided,
however, that the indemnifying party shall reimburse the indemnified party forthwith for any and
all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys' fees, upon billing and
accounting therefor.
8.4. Challenge to Existing Land Use Approvals. By accepting the benefits of this Agreement,
Owner, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, hereby expressly agrees and covenants
not to sue or otherwise challenge any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of
the Effective Date. Such agreement and covenant includes, without limitation, the covenant
against any direct suit by Owner or its successor in interest, or any participation, encouragement
or involvement whatsoever that is adverse to City by Owner or its successor in interest, other than
as part of required response to lawful orders of a court or other body of competent jurisdiction.
Owner hereby expressly waives, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, any claim or
challenge to any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date.
8.5. Survival. The provisions of Sections 8.1 and 8.2 shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
9.1. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any
manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any
improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing
with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may
require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time
to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any
such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is
consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. In furtherance of the foregoing, and
notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Agreement, any Mortgagee of the Property
shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
9.1.1. Default under Agreement Does Not Impair Lien of any Mortgage. Neither
entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid,
diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value,
unless otherwise required by law.
9.1.2. Request for Notices of Default by Mortgagee. The Mortgagee of any mortgage
or deed of trust encumbering the Property or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a
request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled
to receive written notification from City of any default by the applicable Owner in the
performance of such Owner's obligations under this Agreement.
9.1.3. If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any
notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of
that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The
Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining
cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
9.1.4. Lender Protection Provisions.
(a) Notices to Mortgagees; Mortgagee's Right to Cure.
(i) Notices to Mortgagees. City shall send to each Mortgagee which
has provided City written notice of its name and address, in the manner provided by Section 9.1
above, a true, correct and complete copy of any written notice sent to Owner of a default by Owner
under this Agreement at the same time as and whenever any such notice of default shall be given
by City to Owner, addressed to such Mortgagee at the address last furnished to City by such
Mortgagee. Owner irrevocably directs that City accept, and City agrees to accept, performance
and compliance by any such Mortgagee of and with any term, covenant, agreement, provision,
condition or limitation on Owner's, part to be kept, observed or performed hereunder with the same
force and effect as though kept, observed or performed by Owner provided that such performance
and/or compliance is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.1.4 below.
(ii) Mortgagee's Right to Cure. Notwithstanding anything stated to
the contrary in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be terminated as to any Project Phase
because of a default or breach hereunder on the part of Owner until and unless:
(1) written notice of any such default or breach has been delivered
to Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.1.4(a)(i) above,
(2) with respect to a default or breach that is curable solely by the
payment of money, Mortgagee, Owner have failed to cure such default or breach within thirty
(30) days following the expiration of any of Owner's notice and cure periods set forth herein,
and
(3) with respect to a default or breach that is not curable solely by
the payment of money, Mortgagee, Owner have failed to cure such default or breach within
ninety (90) days following the expiration of any of Owner's notice and cure periods set forth
herein or, if such default or breach is curable but cannot be cured within such time period, (i)
Mortgagee has failed to notify City within such ninety (90) day time period that Mortgagee
intends to cure such default or breach, (ii) Mortgagee fails to commence to cure such default or
breach within such ninety (90) day period, or (iii) Mortgagee fails to diligently prosecute such
cure to completion. It is expressly understood and agreed that no Mortgagee shall have any
obligation hereunder to cure or complete any cure of any breach or default by Owner hereunder.
(b) Permitted Transfers to Mortgagee.
(i) Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this
Agreement, the following transfers shall be permitted and shall not require the approval or consent
of City:
(1) A transfer of the Property (and the concurrent transfer of the
Owner's rights under this Agreement with respect to the Project Phase provided the conditions in
Section 2.5.1 hereof have been complied with as to such Project Phase), at a foreclosure sale under
a Mortgage, whether pursuant to the power of sale contained therein or a judicial foreclosure decree,
or by an assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or
(2) Any subsequent transfer by a Mortgagee (or its nominee or
designee if the Mortgagee, or such nominee or designee, is the purchaser at such foreclosure sale
or under such assignment in lieu of foreclosure) with respect to the Property, and the concurrent
transfer of the Owner's rights under this Agreement with respect to the Project Phase that is
transferred, provided that the conditions in Section 2.5.1 hereof have been complied with as to
such Project Phase.
(ii) Any transferee arising from any transfer permitted above shall be
liable to perform the obligations of Owner, as applicable, under this Agreement only so long as
such transferee holds title to the Property, provided that upon any such conveyance of title, such
transferee's transferee expressly assumes and agrees to perform all of the obligations of this
Agreement first arising after the date of such conveyance to the extent applicable to the Project
Phase.
(iii) Following the transfer, if any, described in Section 9.1.4(b)(i)
above, all non -curable defaults existing under this Agreement prior to such transfer shall be deemed
waived without further notice or action of any party.
(c) Rights of Mezzanine Lender. Any lender that makes a loan to Owner or
to any entity holding an interest in Owner, direct or indirect, that is secured by a pledge of equity
interests in Owner, direct or indirect, shall be entitled to all of the rights and remedies under this
Section 9.1.4 that are afforded to a Mortgagee under this Agreement, (i) provided that Owner shall
have provided to City written notice setting forth the name and address of any such lender, and (ii)
except that such rights and remedies shall be subject and subordinate to the rights of any
Mortgagee, and shall not impair any of the rights and remedies afforded any Mortgagee, hereunder.
9.1.5. Obligations of Mortgagee Under Agreement. Any Mortgagee who comes into
possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed
of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property=as applicable, or part thereof,
subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement
to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform
any of an Owner's obligations or other affirmative covenants of an Owner hereunder, or to
guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be
performed by an Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the
performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder,
and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall
be subject to the provisions of Section 2.5 of this Agreement.
10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1. Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof
shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the Clerk of the City Council against the
Property within ten (10) days following Owner's receipt of the fully -executed, recordable
Agreement from the City. If the parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or
cancel this Agreement, or if the City terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided herein for
failure of the Owner to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
City Clerk shall cause notice of such action recorded with the Orange County Recorder, and in
connection with any termination of this Agreement, in such form or by such recordable
instrument, that will allow a reputable title company to remove the Agreement as an exception to
title of the Property (a "Termination Release").
10.2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and
agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or
ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to
herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall
be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
10.3. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be
determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking
into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision
of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the
Development Impact Fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City
would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event
such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall
be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
10.4. Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder
shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with
venue in Orange County. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair
language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and
the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party
shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by
counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.
10.5. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience
only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
10.6. Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.
10.7. Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement the
Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners
under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the
default of all such owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot that has been
finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a member of the general public shall have any
obligation under this Agreement except as expressly provided for herein.
10.8. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement as to which time is an element.
10.9. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions
of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the
default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand
strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
10.10. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole
protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns, and no other person shall
have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
10.11. Force Mai eure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in
performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by: (1) strikes, lockouts or
labor disputes; (2) inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes therefor
(including as a result of freight embargos); (3) inclement weather which delays or precludes
construction; (4) acts of God, including but not limited to earthquakes, or the public enemy or
civil commotion; (5) condemnation, (6) fire or other casualty; (7) shortage of fuel, electricity or
natural gas; (8) action or nonaction of public utilities or of local, state or federal governments,
affecting the work, including, but not limited to, any delays in the permitting process as a result of
the action or inaction of such governmental authorities including government shutdown for a
period of time of one (1) week or more; (9) criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or (10) pandemic or
government imposed quarantine (11) other conditions similar to those enumerated above which
are beyond the reasonable anticipation or control of such Party, or other causes beyond the
Parry's reasonable control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time
for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, provided that the Term of
this Agreement shall not be extended pursuant to this section for more than five (5) years.
10.12. Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also
constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby
of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.
10.13. Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the
benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this
Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and
constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act
hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden
upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any
portion thereof.
10.14. Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed by the parties in counterparts, which
counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had
executed the same instrument.
10.15. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or
brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of
any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of
Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the
filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
10.16. Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between
the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party
is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent
contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this
Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this
Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity
regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.
10.17. Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide
reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all
obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon
the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute and file or record
such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary
under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
10.18. Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict
the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.
10.19. Agent for Service of Process. In the event any Owner is not a resident of the State of
California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint
venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event,
Owner shall file with the City Manager, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a
natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business
addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or
based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such
action shall constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon
such agent is not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process
and such service shall constitute valid service upon Owner. Owner is amenable to the process so
served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and
protests thereto.
10.20. Certificate of Compliance. At any time during the term of this Agreement, any lender or
either Party may request either Party to this Agreement to confirm that (1) this Agreement is
unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications hereto, that this
Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such
modifications); (2) to the best of such Parry's knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement
or if defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults; and (3) any other information
reasonably requested. Each Party hereby agrees to provide a Certificate to such lender or other
Party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written request therefor.
10.21. Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
Owner warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement
on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and
represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind Owner to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
[Signatures on following pages]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the
last day and year set forth below.
SCP:
South Coast Plaza,
a California general partnership
By: C.J. Segerstrom & Sons,
a California general partnership,
its Managing General Partner
By: Henry T. Segerstrom Management LLC,
a California limited liability company,
ManjlEe
By:
Segerstrom, Manager
By: HTS Management , In ., a Ca 'forma
c ora ' n, Management
r
By:
Sr ice President
CITY:
City OF SANTA ANA, a California municipal
corporation
By:
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Jennifer L. Hall City Clerk
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BY:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
Dated:
EXHIBIT "A"
(Legal Description of the Property)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A:
PARCELS 1 AND 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP MARKED EXHIBIT A, ATTACHED TO LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-81-6, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO
82-0001483 OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL B:
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 40, PAGE 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
101 ►:1'A:114Ii7:19]4:Zil��_11�I�IilIJ►��'�
1]e1:114atop
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 41, PAGE 48 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL D:
PARCELS 3 AND 4, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 41, PAGE 48 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXHIBIT "B"
(Map of the Property)
EXHIBIT "C"
Development Plan and list of Project Approvals
Development Plans and entitlement applications as presented in the City Staff Report Dated are
incorporated herein by reference. Project Approvals include, but may not be limited to, the following
entitlements:
1. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report entitled "Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report" State Clearinghouse House No. XXXXX and
City of Santa Ana Development Project No.XXYX-XX("Project FEIR"), which tiers off the GPU
FEIR (SCH# 2020029087) that was certified by the City on April 19, 2022.
2. The " Village Santa Ana" Specific Plan, dated April 2025, adopted by the City Council on
DATE, by way of Ord. No. XX-XXXX.
3. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map, dated XXXX, adopted by Resolution No. XXXX.
4. The Zoning Map Amendment, adopted by the City Council on Date, by way of Ord. No. XX-
XXXX.
CENEHAL N7TEs
2 �u —n- Fr�>w 0,,r17xr"XE.��e rrc ca.orl: "..,.A :r�rSAxP..Ne�wirleoRm`�M ew; A'W,M
n' _�EoI�I �Aw
xaew,M.�s ipmrxRm m m!➢I.xl sw x 4•L[
gm
r..INsn41M P9N'4C\A+.AYLINIpR I➢rAlel'N IqO fGSrWgRlsYc�ucPr bNr u�mv�¢[o[mcrrnmNlf in
�� rL Rda[F58 !rO Xeu vE OfosRTEd AYeusw ,x rsmsvm cwmra cvrwa, eN 5rsam C>JL@ up
. .rwwayy rtalr.F., rwwn+rae r•-Lw rwrvwn
r. renm¢rnmrA[Pemm romA:vA:LRrc
nrw F- e.aFs iu!xcx.Y a,msss vx•!en�r,LnP: xsrEa weun Awls. ETef w.v PE
Fl4YaRC Ib4RsuYX.sw a Rlwm A,mcaaeuesar
m. rrernSrxxRANMrRe¢1;RTi ¢ws
•• ! Mom[ ttw�Vlri�r uru�ry vaoll[�ira -�ssn�vc maw .u[ryl,<eBlrt rG, IMb b Mwrt W rtR neLL vtes
•x. ra$neel,px enf11 lRluN.AetRerelSti[rF n[IwR
�I vF BWLbFi1•k s4l r,i WMrRL IWRIMF YrA+fEd[ikW!u.rr vrosNls¢x5xybp v.Av,FRO+d rIRFbGxa'Wtl!
sxmac➢f��e!sAara PTr ms.[MI `�F pA1M�rr mn�Nru�nxceP-,p'rW�u "tt MNOM111eG1�dR ALL
,A .uAQonnlne.w.a � uvAw¢rrkm ,ux
A,mw�Aa.�nAe<AEAFL�rLe.rR..�rar,e..:•e[rT.�,t��r,Aaxw
..�-Ywam. rSmR� r9P RwEm[RLLe� rx[mTPrrortL u Rurrktm x tte
r iL%°y«:r�w.ee�a,Pun `rr"Mi w-i! a`irA. u w�ecc""ren"R.u°X"r'�¢r'r`o�Pr,lnwnrm: bo ueweanwn. we
1r Aflp l<0.'CFS WT[TivlLxllEE!IH!fl�wMx llun[[xu[rcm rn. .n p.rinW AIWIeE AN➢L•;rlb I1D
c v n R,Fs[YEnEMFUFmE..WAm5B�WICEI 65�4R�nIR A�a'fA>IX M R&LYeIEI) VIIMEi AtD
rk IL T [.Vsx wort¢ In41mwJo•me• e¢nxR rvs Rsievy, mAr eWingr,}y, rVxL 1! MtVAA➢,Im b
8. �¢. Pxnedl0u•IG1faC R.ftzx to.m,¢rri arxaexmex,efnR
x2Y�w¢F new r�Rr AicP�mvmowr�v nIAACC�rOXmF��EYllExAAA MSIYw[ •MiW Y,X.Irreemmasrw n.m.
A,. RAxnuA.smousor.s,osazr�wern+..rrw•scar,m,rtw.e.k�ra:..,�rA,rx rr.[nmel
� E�Ert,�iFN�P11I1R[dm na�iew�wxl9u,�aax�.un uxumc rxx�im.Mfnur[.m�p [s xuss���ssF wi�IPE
T[X Pxrw!. mnw PP Prx xwP ml IL ,Leas rP lwrm'u er rr¢ exArinx+mnx Aw ,rLv➢IwrAna[
x ���afinem�,wE`�.:.,[;:
F wlm�artnv- x�vue¢xnrrvrsnasun ewnvlwuaPF➢rd rd11C4 nIL"a¢s taMocwrar[c ww¢rwu "{u" s err
!I. wfrvvdaer...wrx �•a¢nweLixeexameuQ ucwone'xwn„caa,e;n rrv.lfe
Q 1¢A¢b I� vry rrmYs£i 11WIL. -i i ... i -�N-:dfJIXR6 NWRH htl
ewmuvrelrvxr wRrRrtAsn[rm AFsxWrM. nIPrF R!R4N.EOCB'sn:. ... -
tl ALLR➢R Iw AAk.1E 9nEEi1.1e 11eV:AarP.e.11FY11rAR 9kNerrxx'1rr"-.i: :.-.[ r.�y.4AAr.Hlknitlh
uoAEL sm9[ rpusli :Yri',ritier:
oYYf MRN rhvRR[n�ElkMlk uve�4}e�Rxwwe�raTyiM9a MThN L40rAKr�' M1gF"r4 cL•pe¢eE
r,. [rH[GEa1VE YRCWr4GTIM1F6MIrE WMeM1kIJNeUFf IdNM,i,�"•ancrmcrv"w."v'n¢, omrxY xui5a0Mes1 G
omxc�rwrvn�cdu�n�urmu=nwru o�,r�m�x.�.�iw��s[ �arRnlr"xtxn rxslLEI INIr,,.RAurrRx Mmon
c Aulpxrle tmwiAx:mR nrvaAcewmNslcuee,Ywr[rtrnm erlee rPM WIDMO PfAHr 6nE.AA1MEFEfuWF14
m TAR R RE IAmlVAY Of AW h[LYC IC;W'. nx Akvt.YR ¢ rP R surn an w.ai •mttaTrp OF,ma RLps rp M!
NAiW,G1LrvlrwxuRFrilwlM1r.. N[Res Xi.'.Nm(.�a rancn vcv�N•[mr�ieeurrnxo
wo[grIP PBNE1EAfAEMMw'b llErm`irwl Y+mimnonrq� �rt'�rtX.ms
t I �' w[r�.x.�IpEIAE��WI}xxmnewne vuu aa¢vrR
n.elem mws a.necasmer�er r•exYR4r nx [PL L1aL1n4xi 4RR➢BE,LRY AA MIEIFAI'llXllN Pltllr
Y. a g1ERWF1lE �4fNSr1EY0.0.F:F[q){rlpE r�AMiMEEI]w to Nu rtmmr�w.{rgnn[. r5srp[-0LL£•nyl
. aNx nlelL 4dgMfX:.Cs1�TArt��k UTk+n[n' em'9wl Nr�arnenuron'Imrdo
!r oF+FranrbernFdriAmun ne>runnlP.AalYemPaa.EnlPo-eu>E ar.veEPErr!er»Xaanmtn�rx xa.,
• Imprn Ne Ax1[,a±ArarrxAlnrrLr.rw PnonriPnu rrern�i.mA¢rmxr retr-wsa rnc. r.Lx.rhYlw[�r
u eAN.lt<Trtanw.txlwwTmAElnnuorinaArelrel,<rtoeerm trxw..wueLAkuonex.uswE.uLeTelwfosr
rr AMAtARr,4 rlrrR,IpAMlya!R xarX�eyaya ®�mnianly mf •PAA
WATER SYSTEM NOTEFr.
r �I(1[is1111: MreP WWrPMuelelLlkTN 4w1I.wAmleenesTn xeRelaDANA EAPAIWLp nE WhA RF1.riI
�reety urteswt o,aawrorxarP..r9i11'eR e'(ifdfA.
]. 411N1Nevl1Ea111FA AWr•9Wu ECRr4F1EA ImMxurO YPuelu�aRrmrvry cowaigw{s:m'W@r up
ARv£RfehliL
urn;m.a{p gtEXgwPn wAt kLeyyAr�kx:rkE f&:Xnw.rknatvu[sraxa.mvA,¢ePxalatnxrts.
rte[Y%�N4UYAM1[UL(fArFA N•EDiJL.SExHNNFM.:MIRavtiu•s6�hsw wwin ¢carro nwrW sme`mttxl¢�
�NA� tAaE 6P1M WAr�Aak[rtays �y`Fw�as , o¢w¢�NWr�io M+re �¢so�iwirym,�FW Ic�GIMi'��c
AA'rWx rt , v
kPtENL�PAAar¢leR NN�I lorPoN. �an��x'wr �M�m�Rx
wrionaX:.w��cnai eiP,'�
�.I ware`�'P'eEAwmx�[FwrnarrcPLrn!rarrPf PPrr[r➢ru[Ercanmr�!xrnwcE.
vaYurtgXrcw Fuc¢yrr¢cmuy ry[eEmmFy p.,,.dxuro vxeeae xru rrenn[Cx
Im Aln smat XAAaweafar n.[e Du N1VGRPl
®F[cMSRu.ax RYn6asN+Y Pam4C• W7lrrmf. i1P4]IgNGW PIN 41kWln AMNL hrake[uFxRvmA
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2023-159
IN THE CITY OF SANTAANA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHFETiNOEk
F£NOASL$dY81CH1)F PARCEL61 ANO2OF LQrL1NE AD.RIFSTMEHTR0. L4�11�, P�CORp(pJAHVk412. t5Hi LF:T �PR°�y!
AS WGTpLeYENY N-XR l-, 0ETHER'MTH PAROEL2 AS PER NIW FILED Ik NOGI<40. PACE a OF
PARCE wk AW PAROELA e. S AM X 0 PER MAP FI LEO PI ROOI(41. PAGEi OF PAR[Y WPS• a➢4 �e
CM TAN
ALL REMRL)e of THE COHH7Y R1:ppROFA of 9HAMGE COLYNTY, DAUFORNIA f
TARdASSOCIATES INC. KNE]OIN
151Q?r,HiprtSODA
.��.,... a 'w Y••�m
YMnrva,�rHIArT SOUTH CDAST $ANHID INTE
,,,
rlLOffdoulhCaas3tPlaa&Village
1heEnda�xatSoulh ,
Coast Aparfmiwn�i�n
a
SITE SnuthCoalI
�n� � .��^.•�..�w,-�•^�°m..
Iwb
F j'rl➢I IAII; I k➢ � IR �
wirnetxepe&erFo-nes
rnl� EYCEPIfCN9
O,:::•°'°."�'"�
AMN 1314
am rw¢
nm
'4•
a p
__ __ ..--.
a..rw .�
'�.���'•nk�N�/A:^sy41..x....
VIClNITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
cW Ep aYeipfLNOTE9
.�orw.w unm u..� a w..yu •w ewe e
I AILst3YPELYeIVwllf wuartwxmawuecunksaet[i rorr�Prasxup rPtF➢eALtC }T rµ1FPPPBWR�
YNu2adrewr,vFccaorr reow svgrae me wTP almePAlx rw.;lsEa
1. LLAMr!gwAnaenesr.Ina_weseee'¢.teree.wwEl nrYzuwxrrcn[IrtresAlnAmrw.raus ne uasP
]g9RrYAF1.R,bnAEAlrAi4A!�N: ffrL.liolf➢AuftAa]Gn.�l.ri➢!ama�mre[[{cxlaAppnc(uylpgq
turf eLL lJwfexssx.a.:e.rusuer�M�a`tlLNRr<vHal�WAEmrvT pnewr�wipt ¢o�rr.�cXee c�
r oc r.s waai nnww io •� a.
C.R�.a.T.iEYw�RG•L �.JIr
w.e.>mr�w�wa�liv..e�iu. wec�o.r
uma.0 rswaw tl Mlralw[l a•Yo
I YYYov a•r�e_w.n �o•.c�nnrnnrxrie
lMA1exlkr iofiwm�i•e m AxwFxa ufmr.
e. M6AlWetuL OF IIF 1uIfRffBgAGkwrWWMru Ele�IrONG.M.MYlwlL.setvo urlrweetrro,xlmey
. �N���Nwoeuc[mYlmlMrrlTVIMRFCr[}A4aP1HiAYX&iP[.9[L➢YIrFB4 MfRWPMAJe
(� u
rMvr•. ai•
�ebLLYAPAaMi3ar Ot9WYfW[aINlbw[e.r.Nle[FRrieuotlt �m nwrimc.[n[�xT,rn•AnnMM1!
NY9F�MNI[e�:VUAeam�PlFeteenex �[,1xP; spk I�IL vuaA
•. asanertl¢reAa➢A�v++e�RecN�EnuenoasAxum okE.7E �mieEr•T�rneamw"LL`„�°U`r"!�..:�xr.ro
xomrsa.wn ww.rro[m�an nf.rt YRVF[AVNhk rI1HMI�firtrce�WF0..1PY[E.rteM
"`u._ .nrrr�u..•. w. �n.•.�..r.....e
�r _. n.._ ... n.....F...�....•..e..
Q+�.�
� . x .
Ha3LL OFaFAiINO]'
re.r(!iieeswwrua� e�e�r,.M1wr
pPCMA .
qer AUW..w :eM
m cau ic'%�i.�m
rESAETrT
nMDMIIFIRATFJIRIXE4
waw-e�.r.•KLXw.
�a r
z➢raae rEonsAcxTNwr arnn..a mr..r
PnenwP.RLIIwawwRr
FLOOtl1r!AL
t�vur •�i urn 'gym
91
i [F 5
IrtGFT GTATiA1FM.
AYE
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP NO.2923-159
IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
9EINGR"Olmi?NOf PARCEL81A➢IO2CFLOTLMEAQJU6TMEKNO. LLA1$ RECXI JANWRY21982
k41X41AUMEFyT NO.8t4NA um. FOGETHER 9Til PAKeL2 AS PER MAP FUO1N 80OX 4OPAGE 0 OF
PARCELIMPGFNORARGM2.aAN04AGPERW VOINM41, PAGE 49OF PARCFL IMPS,
ALL AECOAOSOF THE COLINlY REGCROER OF OAAW6 COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
TAFF;A59QGlATE8, M.-TG9ER29I4
OLELC
i IACA FITHVH 66U-�EvkD F0
v8-
��
PLOTIE06sB91EHR�
iYF.}
SITE
�14� rn.
Wu
sunlra
nrtSna
�.,Prty
4I19c.s�'r_3
mm�l�sa,s,
w.rta
Q
un iaTa i m
„aA •n rnm:a .
ww— n
mAm
4
m„�, �.rea..
mrcm m.
vm�wnc uert.cu yuFnr
xstvs em awna'�o.aro
s"{"&�ni*+urn,�,
ROtR �n
van ,om, oar y�
�wnar9rr
saw
I�al
OnP;1°'
�
m�wx roc°xwn..
IhLRBi �].��REGI� RY
%,�i�^"�w�rn�� •wee a•�
Fulw.Etis i woes �
ec oinil�sei�l�
,F�y��,
yl¢x.
IAI,TW,xh,0.VH.
miAM W.
w c u,urt, eyx a
U5l. NA. 1W2-�,SNB
3C. IWVhNi
']ary
lARG
°�
NOTE
SEE WET T FOR UNERAL NOTES
1�
189 Ji II
I
� 4
GRAPHIC SCALE o 11 i g
2P E 3`
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19360
IN THE CTY OF SANTA ANA.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
A �
TAR d AS54ClATES. INC, Meth Z]
nwc� urxx�ill.n L
pxr+ury
a
aa 1-'ntL
PARCEL
N£Sla]ENTIAE A}ERTI-STGR1 ntli r I
I
a
I
UTAEUING WYTR GNUERGRUUNU I I
a
I
FARKAVG 5lRUCIUR£ clurwp scA�
„I
PARCEL3
I
(sfEARLYrr£trUR RUNS rJ
I
I
WI r
i b
RESTO£NY1AL LWL TI-STURr
euxGTNc POW r1NBeRCRorAA�
�'
dl
rPR L'E7R r D I
i
t�tetl lr
cartvrncwa-,Jmr
y
j9AV CSTRI,tT y
PARCEL-0
s
J
(src ARc±NrrcruRAa PLAA's
rOR UFAR)
RBSRuuT+u vuiTr-doer
RNIUNNNrs WIN IiM1'dERCBC[LYU
.I
j . f J / I xanEoua�MsurTAm
('
y
rARNrRc srRucTUR£
I ,.a�xa a..ro
(SEE ARL'NITECTURAL FLANS
lI , FOR C'i'liq II r 11 .J
Jmrs 5 � I JI a
� � I aaIWII�R£SrD£Nrk! �l I I ANKFd-USED dutrI-SOY
PARCEL2 WLMOEWMIJAfJ LuUolx�Uo, uWeITdH uUuNrU!£-R5PRraORUr
Ndrf-5rRr RINC.7%crURf
8WOM WITH UNB£RBRPUN (S£C ARNECGAi FLANS AARNC SlRUCURf �2t
In PARKING STRUCTUE l F& NETAL (5E ACN£CTAPA[ FL1Ni
(SEE ARCHITECTURAL FLANS rmTa �
orrAft) I �IAG 9 F
3 Q FaR DETAR)Lill
4
- —
DF
PARCEL i I f
,91
� Illil9. K4q Al•AEG
JrN 'O�Ji.' rO�F W194!
I � i L � 1 � i W ,•�.'� "'^'�,. snunas � •oas uaw ouwr f
i� � - i � mID11 m. y A IaNWYxa �a f
MINCd-US(O RfUI,TI-sTORi w U �
BuewNc WqN vNaERCRauNu PARCEL. 6 U --
(SEC ARCRIT£CTOAL PLARS +f W "n WXEU-USED MUlrl-SiDRY m m I
FUR UErA!!J I Rufww WITH UAA7EKGR[MAW7 iV '
f l PARKING STRNGrUW
a HATE:
5£F dRL'RITCCryRAL PLANS
i I I FOfl REFA!!J II SEE SHEET 1 FOR CENERAL MAP NOTES. '
SEE SHEET 2 FOR LINE AND CUM ?AEIE
—
�1[�iN'A1 ZMTA rffP� _ (W�b
Ha4ae
(Pua. C WW - WIDTH VARIES)
SUNFLOWER AVENUE
VA
rLuI, lIRM]
I
SECTIQNA-A
�.
�s
s � � La rsE•563a '� _ —O __� � �gII1 ! e'e'swe� to � ess
I - � _.. ... _ _ k�'/ / � Syr• an-
• 4 I
— ' it �'' I I• � � 14j I
i�ody `� �•,i
_ '--o
J .,'. [.I - LNL ` qA SECT$
r
.. � f—ti--�._ • and j al ...• n�rtma I � � � E cekn E.�J swa Ilu u �r� "
R-_ _: ._- � � �pnev 1.. im.j I .. � Irni •qi i ���
1 I A tLLRu %Y � -
I j; I .rrl va. mar w,¢ I��i ��tsr l"T')��-_----------� ��- :; �,• .� f�i.
nMGldtr ✓fr4�l /f( Hnlp'/niu 1p [:ri
m _ r �� FSEAfm � I y . � 1 �.I +: • r � � tit�•sR� I.
4 4m eqN N,r40.de
r..g lM.l
SECTION C-N
uPaG]5 i �'i � I arL�am -
I ! R R iealrw - lrai I wnR..l. mr:x ,:r�•i=-=-' alnwrt
'
oaw lm] I k Le.N lux
real®
DZ Im] e g
I - i f�, � t_ I' _ _ •r>,. �raxPl � s-ue' y-r g u Za
r 1 - wNn I ron.m .r.am Iq ! J
I I a xR wm
.i •: I I Ira � 1 RiaiAS�� � � �.. I - - _ - C � ��
_ F Ij 7r d RPYt I ~ �6lrJrCPWnJ m � Ir9P1R � r�2�
I °"�"'41 ' 3EGT16N F• � ���
_ - H-�' ❑� ���� CM.0 T� „4 � - � SIM'MH IO.YI[I � �Nn
__ IL� -_�_�_ I�R�r p¢�So uim�f.'+i11Y ��A+�__ - �Y L7 ❑� I.
wo
TAIM I nlAr.^O AIM � �
LEGEND n-xni r a'm I w,ua�rr�
RLmm� �� rnvms aI, °y , w HCEE
i n,R�[�rm�L• wr•.rail SEE 54EET t FOR GflJERAL NOTES
m a Lnu
IV -. w,xecu ,N,.R m..lu � � , • � Gaeone¢ °m wP
IgECT p
�wirutiti ra miw rrxucrr He �'¢ r
� minus srw mxurwovan � �onnpEn�roxuasr.�ee]r ewh �aLus $
I E
i-��•• [MMEMIH`t➢IIVhRM1 ui Il °�M. NlPI F
i2a !
i� SEA HH 4nr5
r .� W WR °R+.r.•
I ww� r f`� � � +• � Wlw.s
j.,
s� a n W,x Pvc �...Inwc nRe..ac n, rR WIfA:M — - - — s.smcvsoPm reanr.x
— �ce um nnc= r• �I �] -------axlm RSG9xon[ws
.�p $YFrur I mi �� r1.�f _—_----ao¢."nl umaruv rw.�r e.�„�•,.:
II I UP4[5 :I �I - 11
MOTE
5CE 5HEE11 FOR UTILITY MOTES,
y I
'srx Gal �mlm�rrw `��,a l,� a ms,sia I � J � '! r •� ,
sin l
r!
4 A� R.PYLi
- .eeYnelr,«rcPuru rlm��— I _ n:« _ _ r• Ljj
--— — I J III i� I r r A It
ewnw a om�Pr
FF i 9 M.�urrsv /II j 1 1.
_—. `yf I Ir I ` [LMWIAIWOR Lw.Lwn wf aR. wm [MI I { }o
IL
� L!l 1WP �fOR W1°IJIm `a' � � SG+CIYC WIG III I f" �8
uF,
I! � 1 Rw.eoA I i r
' ' — — — .. re c m[az oso oFsn p
o asa Puc. � — — -• •• — — . ;j-'r m. r�nwart`� I • I 1
I �� cew _.. wow---_--�_—�— _� .���- � �•• a�—�-------- �
ooc "1 aaY' I I J+
I � r I s��axal yyy go
Vo
Irua�,Y,yw 1!!w
A
LL
rokY 1 I Aim •! - - flH�•Yp b�F[�� Y ' �. 4 � � M P9G G� � ! � � �pq.
T—
�
x[r�oa°r� I�n•�rRsn — mmc;°%"r wsac z[mYW , . ��J ewicml � :. + _--. I o a'� � �:,..� 9mTw — as r.s shar _ .._ — - - wno ue —:a •ia R r r•R •°°`n'°'
nYn wn u
— — -- WNFLOWERAVENVE
- W WL Y4Y RRN YE Y/J '
I
r lj
f I
j E
.] g
Exhibit 10 — Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Materials
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) Sunshine Ordinance community meeting
materials can be found online on the City's Project webpage at https://www.santa-
ana.org/the-village-santa-ana-specific-plan/.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Responses
[r•7
Comments Submitted to Planning Commission
August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This document provides responses to the written comments received by the City of Santa Ana's
Planning Commission in advance of the public hearing on August 11, 2025 for the proposed
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered
for reference purposes.
Table 1 provides a list of individuals that submitted comments. The comment letters received and
responses to those comments are provided on the following pages.
Table 1: List of Commenters for the Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Letter Number
Commenters
Date
11
Peter Cripps
July 25, 2025
12
Rene German
August 6, 2025
13
Carlos Castellanos
August 6, 2025
14
Audri Sandoval Gomez, PhD
August 8, 2025
15
Dr. Bruce R. Weber
August 8, 2025
16
Erica and Jose Pedraza
August 8, 2025
17
Janelle McLoughlin
August 9, 2025
18
Janelle McLoughlin
August 9, 2025
19
Janelle McLoughlin
August 9, 2025
110
Michael Hanson, M.Ed.
August 10, 2025
111
Chris and Catey Reese
August 11, 2025
112
Monica Daneshrad
August 11, 2025
113
Luz Suazo
August 11, 2025
114
Long Nguyen
August 11, 2025
115
Susana Guzman
August 11, 2025
116
Teri Brissae
August 11, 2025
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 11: Peter Cripps, dated July 25, 2025 (1 page)
From; Peter Cripps
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 2:31 PM
To: eComMentsr PRA
Subject: The Village building project South Coast
Fallow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Arrenrion: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links -
To: Comma Zapien
I am to the Village project to be built between Plaza Dr. and Bear St--. and north of Sunflower.
Fifteen hundred residential units are way too many- The traffic on MacArthur and Bristol is already bad enough 11-�
due to the proxmnty of the Performing Arts Center. South Coast Plaza and munerous residential areas
which already- generate a lot of noise and traffic.
I live at 1601 W- MacAirthiu (Aspens apts-)
I sad- lew.T the land and shopping area as it is -
Thank You,
Peter Cripps
1601 W- MacArthur Blvd. -
Santa Ana
92.704
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 11: Peter Cripps, dated July 25, 2025
Response 11-1: The commenter expresses opposition to the project and their opinion that the
amount of residential units is too many. The commenter states that MacArthur Boulevard
and Bristol Street already experiences bad traffic and increased noise. The noise and
transportation impacts of the proposed project have been studied in the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which determined that the proposed project would have
less than significant impacts to noise and transportation. The commenter is directed to
Sections 4.9, Noise and 4.13, Transportation of the Draft Supplemental EIR for a detailed
discussion of the impact evaluations for noise and transportation. Additionally, the commenters'
concerns will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their consideration.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
3
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 12: Rene German, dated August 6, 2025 (2 pages)
Frc.m: Rene German
S ant; Wednesday, August 6r 2025 11:21 AM
Tc.; eComment5, PBA
Subject; Segerstrom Letter of support
Attachments: Santa -Ana -Youth -Sports, pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Attention. This email originated from outside Df City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening atbchments or haks-
Dear Commissioners,
12-1
Attached is my letter of support for the Seraei-�tiomFamly-
All the best_
ReneGem=
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing on behalf of the Blue Army Football 7v7 to express our gratitude to the
Segerstrom Family for their unwavering support of youth sports in our great city. Their
contributions have not only prw.-ided our players with the necessary safety equipment
but have also fostered a sense of conuhnimity pride and teamwork that extends beyond
the field.
Over the years, their generosity has supplied several team in the various leagues was a
park of with the proper gear, improved our playing facilities, and ensured that financial
barriers do not prevent children from participating. They consistently step up when help
is needed. not for recognition, but because they care deeply about the young athletes
Who call Santa Ana home,
The Segers cons Family is more than just a supporter; they are our neighbor, a trusted
partner, and an integral member of our community. They are FAMIILY? Their actions
speak volumes about their dedication to mipro�,wr g the lives of local youth, and we are
profoundly grateful.
Thank you for allo% ng us the opportunity to express our appreciation for their
remarkable contributions.
With gratitude,
Rene German
Slue Arne° Football 7v7
Forauer Vice President - Santa Ana Pony Baseball
Fonuer Vice President - Santa Ana Pop I arner Football £- Cheer
City of Santa Ana
I2-2
August 2025
5
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 12: Rene German, dated August 6, 2025
Response 12-1: This comment is the email transmittal of the commenter's comment letter. No
further response is required.
Response 12-2: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 13: Carlos Castellanos, dated August 8, 2025 (2 pages)
Fr:-nr;
S ant; Wednesday, August 6r 2025 3,37 PM
To; eComments, PBA
Subject; Thankyou Letter - SegerArom Family
Attachments: 2025-08,06 Santa-Ana-Rony-Baseball CC,pdf
Attention-. This email originated from mitside -of City of Santa Ana_ Use cauhon when opening atbchments or links_
Good afternoon City Commissioners,
On behatf of SANTA ANA PONY BASEBALL, please find the attached letter.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Carlos Castellanos
Woe President Facilities
Santa Ana Pony Baseball
City of Santa Ana
13-1
August 2025
7
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 13: Carlos Castellanos, dated August 8, 2025
Response 13-1: This comment is the email transmittal of the commenter's comment letter. No
further response is required.
Response 13-2: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 14: Audri Sandoval Gomez, PhD, dated August 8, 2025 (1 page)
From; Gomel, Audri
Selit; Friday, August 8, 2025 '10,02 AM
To; eCommentsr PBA
C€: marice@m€onsensus,com
Subject: Support for Segeutrom Family
Arreuriou; This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening afthments or lin.E.
To whom it may concern
As a parent of both a current 7th grader and a recent graduate of Santiago Elementary School_ I want to extend
my sincere thanks to the Segerstrom Family for their extraordinary generosity. Years ago, otu imique
performing arts program ---the only one of its kind at the elementary level in all of Orange County —was in
danger of ending. Without .immediate financial support, it would have vanished
tESI
The Segerstrom Family's contribution changed everything. Their gift gave atu school the breathing room to
strengthen the program pursue gmUs, and secure ongoing funding. Because of their generosity, my children
and countless others have been able to discmw their voices, build oonf dence, and learn the value of
collaboration through the arts.
For manv studeWs, this program has opened doors to experiences they Wright never haw had otherwise. The
Segerstrom. Family's impact is felt not only in cur classrooms but throughout our community, and it will be
remembered for years to come_
With deep appreciation._
Audri
Thank you,
Audri Sandoval Gonxex_ Ph.D_
Director
Thomvson Policy Institute on Disabilitv
Anallah College of Educational Studies
Chapman University
One Urnversity Drive, Orange, CA 92W
huynran.edu:`tyi
City of Santa Ana August 2025
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 14: Audri Sandoval Gomez, PhD, dated August 8, 2025
Response 14-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
10
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 15: Dr. Bruce R. Weber, dated August 8, 2025 (8 pages)
Fr:-nr;
dr,bruce
S ant;
Friday, August 8r 2025 12:42 PM
T:.;
eComment5, PBA;
S ubj act;
Agenda Item AMENDMENT APPLICATION (AA) NO. 2025-01r VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP (VTTM) NO, 2025-06r AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) NO. 2025-01
FOR THE VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 WEST
SUNFLOWER AVENUE LOCATED WITHIN THE SPEC...
Attachments:
Attachment Sent to JGuevara@santa-ana,org for your June Planning Meet ng,pdf; 25
08-08 IQ Air Readings,pdf
Attention. This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana_ Use caution when opening atbchments or ]inks_
The attached file was sent to JGuevara[ santa-ana.org after your June planning meeting on the same project, 1)ut
newer received a reply_ The concern was the level of Small Particle Emissions at that bme. A copy of the 10 report
then is in the attachment. A current one is also attached_ h shows that our PM2.5 concentration is currently 2.7
times the World Health organization annual PM2.5 guideline value_ Recent medical research USC et al_ concludes
that PM26 levels higher than the guidelines can cause dementia_ I requested the City to provide inexpensive
monitors for homes fronting on Bear Street to monitor its level here_
My question is that we have much higher levels of PM2.5 now, how is the level going to be reduced by adding traffic
from 1,563 residential units, 80,000 square feet of commercial I retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office
space? Are you going to require that all residents in the project drive electric cars? Please provide your planning
data on this_
Dr Bruce R Weber
Sent with Proton Mail secure email_
City of Santa Ana
15-1
August 2025
11
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Main Concern
Specific Environmental Topics EraPuated - Air Quality
The main concern is that the methodology and models used to quantify air quality relative to
the project are incapable of quantifying the risk of small particles that will be generated by
the project. The problems were pointed out by researchers on air pollution and dementia',
saying bath air pollution and dementia are current and growing global issues. There are
plausible links between exposure to specific air pollutants and dementia."
Their objective was "To systematically review the evidence base with respect to the
relationship between air pollution and later cognitive decline and dementia."
Their (2019) conclusion was that "evidence is emerging that greater exposure to airborne
pollutants is associated with increased risk of dementia-" Discussion and Summary:
DISCUSSION
Overall, the evidence from longirudinal oahortstudies painted towards an association between greater
expo5rrne tQ pgllutants, in H� p an} ; a aS s f em t"a. The evidence for
cognitive decline was m,ure equivocal than that for the dementia outcomes. The pattern was mixed for
03 with studies reporting positive and negative associations with exposure and increased risk and cue
reporting no associatinn. Results for C.0, PMg 5-10, end PM]o were. too few to allow stmng conclusions.
Thrsc results support a possible role for exposure to air pollution, rspccially pollutants
and Oe and an increased risk of dementia and the do dinc in cognitive function that precedes it. Plausible
pathways exist to support this. It is hypothesized that, when inhaled, the gas, particles, or material
de.sorbed from the particle surface act to induce inflammato re ores, mic lie] activation,
R5zduc[lun of reactive ox n s cies and increased du[tion attd de i[iou of A tides [ g,,
12, (304i51, Fl Mhermpre, plausible mechanisms support the potential for inhaled PM, S pr rhL env n
smaller UltmFine Paniculate Matter -A I m tT HIM) machirtg the brain directly via the olfactory bulb
with animal studies fi i u] r ic] tea ' int t e of Ib t e fr al c❑ 'c an
subs rt ltal areas of the brain [ 12.5 -7 1, Although our review focused mainly on later 11fe decline
and incident dementia, ex s rc likely builds r th lifetime. Autopsy studies from children and young
adults Living in Mexico City have found assooations between exposure to urban air pollution, aR rt lam
de ition and inflammation ahead resent within [he brain [21,21, and population -based
longitudinal 9rvclie5 are beginning to report aL55*cietiimis betw".n pricer air pollution expowm. and
imaging outcomes: for example, the Athernsclerosis Risk to Communities study found higher long tern
PM exposure to be associated with smaller deep-grev matter volume [Zal-
1 Porb&m R, E9 N, Roteru J, BU€rttl A, Mutlway I, Ansley KJ. Air Poll utiUn and DGmGrrba A Systematic Review. J
A niAm9rs Dis. 2015;70(sl):S1 5-S10& CIO: 10.E^3:IJAd-180d3l- PMId: 30775918; PMGID: FMG6700631.
The need for better :mall particle modeling
City of Santa Ana
I5-2
Page 1
August 2025
12
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
A search of Pu Wed shows that there has been a tremendous amount of research on
this topic. This graphic is followed by a search of current literature below it.
':::SJLT5 Riy YEAR LJ
Air Pollutian and Dementia: A Systematic Review-
'
P5L6rRri, EtrN, Perera 4 Btedh A, Mudwhy L AftteyCk
[ike
JAlxheime"Die. d6i:IUZD�JAD-1806M.
PMID3A776S78 Ff"PMCartiohl.
Share
RAtKGROLW4D:9oihair pollutionand demerHiaare curren:and growing global issurs-More arm
plaumle lidcsbetweeneeposare to specific air pollutants and dementia. 06.1EMYE. Ta
19egA— 242R
sWarnoGsalryrovW-YVwv+demvGaavwlkhwsPacktathe mida
Air Pollution and Dementia
Research indicates that lung -term exposure to airborne pollution, partiautarly
fIn@ particulata rnafter IPM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (1y02}r is associated with an
increased risk of dementia. Studies have shown that chronic exposure to higher
levels of these pollutants can lead to adverse effects on cognitive abilitles and the
development of neu rode generative disorders in older adults, 3 +
For instance, a study published in Neurology found that high levels of
hamocysteine, a protein involved in cardiovascular conditions, enhance the risk of
dementia linked to air pollution- Conversaly, high methionine concentrations
appear to reduce this risk- 1 Additionally, a systematic review of 53 articles
hlghlighteO that Chronic exposure to higher levels of air pollutants IS iassoclated
with negative cognitive outcomes and the presence of dernerltia, 3
Moreover, a study conducted by researchers at the University of Southern
California reported that living in areas with PM2.5 levels exceeding the
Environmental Protection Agency's standard of 12 pglm' near doublers the risk
of dementia in older women- This suggests that air pollution could account f-Or
approximately 21% of dementia cases globally If the flodings hold true in the
broader population. a
Scientists are actively Investigating the mechanijSmg through which air pollution
affects the brain, While the exact pathways are still being exploredr there Is
growing evidence linking air pollution to cognitive decline and neurcdegenerative
diseases. 6 a
AFpawmetlEPbner. Please rerlry CrhiCti Two.
0 raauralogy.arg 0 prnc.nctr.rYm.nlh.gow ■ txncpalbll[haalth.tao...
Assoc.alion i Larl-ier... Jur PallLtnnand Oernen;. Ar P-mutrork a latent toy...
0 suence.arg a theguarokan.ccm $ thegaardian.com
Grain pcllLMr- Eaidence... Ours air polut-on cause ... Hew Gmerria could het...
The need for better ;mall particle modeling
City of Santa Ana
15-2
cont-
Page 2
August 2025
13
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Research at USC
Footnote 4 above refers to research done at USC_ The Science Advisor's title is "Brain
pollution: Evidence builds that dirty air causes Alzheimer's, demential_ The microscopic
particles sifting from freeways and power plants don't just harm your heart and lungs. They
may also attack your bra in_'°
This study builds on an earlier one at USC3 that stated Tiny particles that pollute the air —
the kind that come mainly from power plants and automobiles — may greatly increase the
chance of dementia, including dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease, according to USC-
led research_
Scientists and engineers found that older women who live in places with fine particulate
matter exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standard are 81 percent more
at risk for global cognitive decline and 92 percent more likely to develop dementia, including
Alzheimer's'°_ Finding that "Cells in the brain treat these particles as invaders and react with
inflammatory responses, which over the course of time, appear to exacerbate and promote
Alzheimer's disease_ Effects were stronger for those with the APOE4 gene that increases the
risk for Alzheimer's.
Our (2017) study — the first of its kind conducted in the U.S. — provides the inaugural
evidence of a critical Alzheimer's risk gene possibly interacting with air particles to
accelerate brain aging,"
15-2
oont.
Back to foe#note 4_ 'What they're finding is critical, including who is most at risk_ "The
aging brain is vulnerable to air pollution," says Caleb Finch, a USC gerontologist and expert
on the biology of aging and also co -principal investigator in the AirPoll Brain Group_ "Far too
long, the role of environmental neurotoxins in Alzheimer's disease has been neglected_'
Within a few years of joining forces, Chen and Finch reported the first evidence that a critical
Alzheimer's risk gene — APO E4— speed s brain aging when it interacts with fine air particles_
In 2011, the colleagues received the first -ever National Institutes of Health grant to study the
connections between air pollution and Alzheimer's_ Since then, about one-fourth of the 220
NIH-funded research grants focused on air pollution and dementia have come to USC_"
'Finch and Chen have also succeeded in attracting more than two dozen USC scientists to
the AirPollBrain Group, crossing disci piines and schools to unite neuroscientists,
environmental health experts, engineers, gerontologists, physicians, sociologists and more_
The result: In 2 01 8, the National Institute on Aging awarded USC researchers a five-year
$11.5 million grant to examine how urban air pollution contributes to an increased risk of
dementia_'°
Air pollution wreaks havoc primarily through systemic inflammation, Finch says, and that
exposure can lead to the formation of amyloid plaques, the proteins that form between the
brain's nerve cells that are the hallmarks of Alzheimer's. Researchers have fine particle
pollution, also known as PM2.5, in their sights-
2 Mine flwww_:cienap_ora_/cont@rea tMgltirain-pollution-ewidenc&-duild,-dirt"r-cauE;ee 31zrralmer-s-dern.@Nma
3 Mi Ie'tOday_usc.edLVair-pollution-may-Igad-to-dementia-in-older-womgrlr
The need for better ;mall particle modeling
City of Santa Ana
Page 3
August 2025
14
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Dr. Lauren Salminen
Her work is part of the national Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, the largest
investigation of its kind in the U.S. `We're adding the environmental factor, one of the least -
investigated areas," she says.
To understand the bigger picture across the Iifespan, Chen and Herting collaborated wit
Salminen, instructor of research neurology at the USC Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging
and Informatics Institute, to create the ENIGMA -ENV Working Group. "We know things like
air pollution can increase dementia risk and vascular problems decades after exposure,"
Salminen says. "But we have so much to learn about the processes that underlie those
cha n ges."
Together, they are pooling brain scans from more than 60,000 people worldwide, who span
all ages and range from healthy to those diagnosed with neurological disorders. Scientists
rely on geespatial technology to map each participant's home localtion and pollution
exposu re.
This global study builds on the success of ENIGMA Consortium, an international medical
network of neuroimaging researchers studying major diseases of the brain, led by USC
Stevens Associate Director Paul M- Thompson. 'The ENIGMA -ENV Working Group is a truly
global quest to identify environ menta I factors that help or harm our brain," says Thompson,
one of USC3s leading Alzheimer 3s researchers. 'Comparing data worldwide should reveal
what factors help our brains develop and age, and what protects us against mental illness,
which may ultimately guide public health policy."
The UEFA and its Triad Approach
The EPA pioneered a method of modeling the concentration of pollution at hazardous
wastes sites that also used geospatial technology. This method enabled the use of
Bayesian Analysis to view probability distributions of contaminants that would seem
to be Much more useful and precise than those used in your report.
IQ Air and its Reports -Would your Planning Department provide these"
The need for better ;mall particle modeling
City of Santa Ana
AirVisuaI Outdoor Monitor
TMe ulllepme ou[doar alr walky mwiuor. PmYRW Vw with hypardml. reel-tlme ak
qua Nysurrauldingyaurhame, shod, arbisi ass. [Urat(Drmaasuring air
PAUtim eapoeana i ram tropic, Irrdu aery, awlckAwd b urrkt o or wil4ree. Uew real-
time and liv&ie alr"IhyvialheTree motile app, Share youree Nr OmWill
millioraofuserswdhIha*Air Airwr alapp.
FREE Fast OeMmry Il arria Daly Shipping
S299-99
5tarlinR at &NVmo ar O-A APR with a%rm.: heck your purchasing power
Page 4
15-2
cont-
August 2025
15
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
My wife and I moved here in April of 1978_ Bear Street did not go through to MacArther at the
time_ I suspect that air pollution at the time was much less than now and what it will be as the
Subject and related developments progress. During those years, it seems as though we have
collected a large number of PM2.5.
More recently we have found a number of adverse symptom ol og ies tt7at are described in research
from USC, suggesting that PM2.5 might have been the causal factor. Both of us have extremely
high levels of oxidative stress_ My atherosclerosis led the need for cardiac bypass surgery in 2028
resulting in a $1,127.417 hospital bill_
Would your Planning Department be wiling to provide AirV-isual Outdoorllndoor Monitors to us and
other homeowners along Bear Street in order to monitor our PM2.5 levels? My father and older
sister survived into their 90's and I would like to do the same_ So, we will be applying to fain the
The ENIGMA -ENV Working group later today. I would like to be able to tell them that the City of
Santa Ana is wiling to help out by providing the monitoring devices_ A sample is shown below -
I] [ Air Air Qunily Ar FA-ik r Air Fur6*rn Fllrrn Fnrllunnn,h hFr ImACI h11pparl
Ha"T mhw
JI.ym a yyI! n1Ya I2.[1ri I.�err
15-2
Cont.
rbx
la 00
MOO
21100
=-00
2}U3 Nkm 0006
OLOO
OLDO
C30D
M00
05 D3
C6O0
0700
OF D3
DO OD
1006
11 Di
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
W
F,
Fr
w
1 Q
47
621
i
It
K
■
.
4
1
:j
J
7r
r3•
,�0'
EE•
CY
03•
43•
6>•
6Y
al.
al•
FI•
♦ .
eF`
ee•
M.
74`
f
Y
f
{
!4
■
•
44
4
a
1
A
L
A
•
03
6.6
a.F
82
6.2
er
1A
a',
115
a9
aA
♦.5
22
2.2
i:t
aA
JA
dr
-0
rW
rfh
rpr
rroY
rph
-0
nph
r¢.
rFh
rW
rch
rpr
—h
.0
rWh
ryr
rph
a
6
6
a
r
i-
A
k
1
a
0-
1
i
K%
am
M"
9'rq`
727%
83%
BCr1i
a.
9131.
86"
"%
32%
7:.
z.
61H
56k
..1. 1.-.1.1.1-... L+ I79rI b,lcrFl
,bra? i ■
ON •
h. GAF
WH 62
r,r ]2
Fri 11
5K 134
r4tp rl•
4L9 nph
V W*
77 0'.
* •1.2 40
Y 62rsa
7T d`:-
{ T12 rrph
a Ia,L
27« 6t.
* 83 ndr
+ 56%
?— t-
f E%nph
F I %
Air Pnhftr1t3L
Pr.17 5
nreorkq, Is 2'.F g.I
Over a wide atea
(not acrcm3 the !atreet)
Al. .. Y 4ti nph L "%
P3+ �1. f8.#ndl �4a% pki2ScurrerrlQlrorr rwg-2.7Lrm5krvWwWFkdlh
01�wi2G1iW19nN@1 PM25 gviMi"w1W.
This data suggests that we already have a problem here_ We need more substantive evidence that
the large influx of new residents and their activities will improve and not exacerbate this worldwide
problem. It is expected that our local IQAir data will be able to be analyzed as part of the ENIGMA
monitoring effort
The need for better :mall particle modeling
City of Santa Ana
Page 6
August 2025
16
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Reference is also made to an ad from an inSHran ce company that underscores their fear that the
trend in dementia will bankrupt our medical system. CLMing-edge research from USC is needed to
solve this problem-
EARLY -ONSET OEMENTIA
AND AiZHEIMER'S RATES GROW
FOR MuNGER AMERICANS
i
4
�q Br(;r1
' �f dl�urSliYdd
IKE X00M OiAY A0
hdm-'irYr hehd en .. .h.
The need for better small pkrticle modeling
City of Santa Ana
Page S
August 2025
17
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Hourly forecast
Orange ai gwlily uWex (AO'%1lgrecas[
Now MOO 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17AO 18:00 19:00 Moo 21:00 22*0 23:00 Sat 130:00 01:00 O2'A0
59 so 6! 62 .63 G4 65 65 fib 67 67 '68 0 8� rtl fi4 as!
84°
84°
Be-
90°
91°
93' 91•
90°
Be-
82- 77° 73° 7V 70°
72°
72°
72'
i
7
7
T
Y
-
.0
.0
4 4 4 4 4
.1
Y
Y
5.6
6.7
617
63
8.9
8.9 11.2
112
112
8.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 4.5
2.2
4.5
22
km+h
kmpr
kmlh
km�h
krrllh
kmlh km+h
kmth
km+h
kmlh kmfh kmqh knyh km/h
kmfh
kirdh
kmfh
6
6
6
6
6
6 6
4
6
6 6 6 66
6
6-
4
58%
56%
53%
49%
d5%
31-A 40%
43%
49%
54-A 57% 613% 83% 66%
66%
70%
71%
Daily forecast
Air pollutants
Orange air
quality
uMex (AOI'I
larerast
What is the rumen: air quality in Orange?
Today
82
93e 88,
411.2 kmjh
6 52%
PM2.5
Fine panicles S= 2.5 purl
Slit
67
84° M •
F 11.2 kM1h
6' 42%
• 13.6 pg(m'
Sun
59
81° 58°
7 11.2 kmlh
6' 40%
M-
61
82' 6e
{ 9.9 kmih
6 46%
It-
67
82• •ie'
.1 11.2 kmfh
6 52%
Wed
ee
81e
11.2 kmjh
4 61M.
Thu
63
87^ •W •
6.9 %Wh
6 63%
a PM 2.5 concentration is currently 2.7 times the World Health
C rganixation annual PM 2.5 guidell no value.
Health reoommendations
Sensitive groups should reduce outdoor exercise Close your windows to avoid dirty outdoor air
Get a menlmr
City of Santa Ana
15-2
cunt.
August 2025
18
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 15: Dr. Bruce R. Weber, dated August 8, 2025
Response 15-1: This comment is the email transmittal of the commenter's comment letter
that was sent to the City after the June 23, 2025 work study session Planning Commission
meeting. The email states the commenter's request for the City to provide air monitors, and
expresses concerns regarding the elevated existing levels of particulate matter with a diameter
of 2.5 micrometers or smaller (PM2.5) emissions and the project's impacts related to these
levels. The commenter is referred to the Final Supplemental EIR responses for the comment
letter submitted on June 9, 2025, Response 14, regarding the air quality concerns.
Response 15-2: This comment provides a detailed discussion compiled from multiple studies
relating to the effects of PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide/oxides of nitrogen. The commenter is referred
to the Final Supplemental EIR responses for the comment letter submitted on June 9, 2025,
Response 14, which expresses the same regarding the air quality concerns.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
19
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 16: Erica and Jose Pedraza, dated August 8, 2025 (2 pages)
Horn: Erica Pedraza
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 1:51 PM
To: eComments, PEA
Subject: S upport for the 5egerstro m Fa m ily — Their Generosity Saved Our Ch i Idren's Arts
Education
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana_ Use caution when openmg attachments or teaks_
Dear Santa Ana Planning Commissioners,
e are writing as former parents of our student who attended Santiago Elementary School, for grades,
to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Segerstrom Family_ Several years ago, our beloved performing arts
program— the only elementary school program of its land on all of Orange County —was on the brink of
disappearing_ Without immediate funding, it would have ceased to exist_
Thanks to the generous donation from the Seg erstrom Family, the program not only survived but flouhs hed.
Their support gave us the critical two years we needed to secure grants and additional funding to keep it going_
Today, my child and hundreds of others are learning confidenoe, teamwork, and creativity through the arts
because of their gift. As we are both longtime residents of Santa Ana, we see firsthand how these programs
impact these kids_ More programs like this are needed in order to keep kids out of unhealthy environments.
This is riot just a program, Ws a lifeline for students who might otherwise never have this opportunity. Please
know the Segerstrom Family's contributions have had a profound and lasting impact on our school and
community.
Sincerely,
Erica Pedraza
Jose Pedraza
Erica Pedraza
ParalegallBankruptcy department Supervisor
pp�
OINS N
M A L L DCE R O 5
A l/ W C OR P OR 4 T 6 N
2112 Business Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
www. malcol mcisneros_com
Follow our firm at: IM
Certified Minority Clmned C'G pomtior
City of Santa Ana
16-1
August 2025
c
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Malcolm 4 Cisneros, A Law Corponaon, is an AV rated, regional commermal and cn-31 litigation firm with offices across the
Wesmm United States in Phoa E AZ; lr4me and Rnvmde, CA; Las Vegas, ; Lake Oswego, OR Dallas, TX; Seattle, WA_
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE"
This email message is covered by the Elecb-oni€ Communications Piiva€y Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged, €onfidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified #that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this comm uni€ation is strictly
prahibited.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
21
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 16: Erica and Jose Pedraza, dated August 8, 2025
Response 16-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
22
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 17: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025 (1 page)
From; Janelle McLoughlin —
Sent; Saturdayr August 9, 2025 5A2 PM
To; eCommentsr PBA
Subject: South Coast Plaza Village
itteurion; This email originated fi-om outside of City of Santa Ana. Use cautim when opening attachments or ]inks_
Aumst 9, 2025 5=41pm
Dear Planning Comm issian 7wiembes,
Du behalf of the Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation, I want to express
our deep appreciation for the enduring partnership we have shared 1 pith
the SegerstromFawAy.
Thew connnitment to the st a6mts. educators_ and famihes of Santa Ana
is umnatched_ The Segerstrom Fanuly has not only contributed
Enancially, but they've played all acti1-e and thoughtful role in shaping
initiath,es that create meaningful outcomes—;vhetherit's expanding
17-1
access to arts education, supporting college readiness, or funding
programs that angurnt and supplement existing programs.
They are more than donors — they are collaborators, advisan, and
cba nipions of public education. Their belief in our students is reflected in
every gift, e-�,ery check -in_ and eery project they help bring to life_ The
results of their investment can be seen in gxaduation caps, in student
artmxL. in nnisic r-citals_ and m the pride of families throughout oitr
coammity.
We consider ourselves fiammate to call the Segerstrom Family a true
partner in oiw n fission to serve the shtdents of Santa Ana_
sigcerely _
Janelle _i cLoughlin
Chief Financial Officer
Santa _Ana Public SClloals Foullda6011.
1601 East Chestnut Ave
Santa _Ana, California 92 01-6322
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
23
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 17: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025
Response 17-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
24
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 18: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025 (1 page)
Fr:-nr; Janelle McLoughlin
S ant; Saturday, August 4, 2025 634 PM
T,.: eComments, FBA
S ubj act; South Coast Plaza Village (AA) No,2025-01
SANTA ANA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FC
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana_ Use caution Mien opening attachments or links_
August 9, 2025 5:41pm
Dear Plannine Commi lion Member
On behalf of the Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation, I want to express our deep appreciation far the enduring partnership Vee have
shared with the Segerstrom Family.
Their commitment to the students, educators, and families of Santa Ana is unmatched. The Segrestram Family has not only
contributed financially, but they've played an active and thoughtful role in shaping initiatives that create mean od outcomes -
whether it's expanding access to arts education: supporting college readiness, or ficiding progr= that augment and supplement
existing programs.
They are more than donor -they are collaborators, advisors, and champions ofpubhe education. Thew belief in our studentr is
reflected in every gA every check -in. and every project they help bring to life_ The results oftheu- investment can be seen in
graduation caps, in student aztscork, in music reritaL. and in the pride of families througbaut our cDr minty.
We consider ourselves fortunate to call the Segrestrom Family a true parmer in our mission to serve the students of Santa Ana_
Sincerely:
Janelle McLoughlin
ChiefFinancial Officer
Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation
1 ti01 East Chestnut Ave
Santa Ana, Califamia 92701.6322
City of Santa Ana
113-1
August 2025
25
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 18: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025
Response 18-1: The comment letter is the same as Comment Letter 17. The commenter
expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their contributions. This comment will be
forwarded to the City's decision makers for their consideration. This comment does not address
environmental impacts within the purview of CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
M.
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 19: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025 (1 page)
Fr:-nr; Janelle McLoughlin
Sant; Saturday, Au g ust 9. 2025 6 A 1 PM
To: eComments, P@A
Subject: South Coast Plaza Village (AA) No.2025-01
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana_ Use caution when opening attachments or links_
SANTA ANA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FC
> August9, 2025 5. 1pm
> Dear Plaumng Cnmamission Members
> On bebalf of the Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation, I Scant to express our deep appreciation for the enduring partnership we hac-e
sbared with the Segerstrom Family.
Tbea commitment to the students, educators, and families of Santa Ana is m atched_ The Segrestrom Family has not only
contributed financially, but they've played an active and tbougbiful role in shaping initiatives that create meaningful outrnmes-
whether it's expanding access to arts education, supporting college readiness, or funding programs that augmenr and supplement
exiting programs.
> They are mare than donors -they are collaborators, advisors, and champions of public education. Their belief in our students is
reflected in every r^ Ln-ery Check-m- and every project they help bring to life_ The results oftheir mcEstment can be seen in
graduation caps, in student artwork, in music recital, and in the pride of families througbout our community.
-_ We consider ourselves fortunate to call the Se Ere -tram Family a true partner in our mission to serve the students of Santa Ana.
�= Sincerely,
> Janelle McLoughlin
> Chief Financial Officer
> Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation
> 1601 East Chestnut Ave
Santa Ana, California 42701-6322
City of Santa Ana
19-1
August 2025
27
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 19: Janelle McLoughlin, dated August 9, 2025
Response 19-1: The comment letter is the same as Comment Letters 17 and 18. The commenter
expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their contributions. This comment will be
forwarded to the City's decision makers for their consideration. This comment does not address
environmental impacts within the purview of CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
01
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 110: Michael Hanson, M.Ed., dated August 10, 2025 (2 pages)
Horn: Michael Hanson -
Sent: Sundayr August 10, 2025 4A9 PM
To: eCornmentsr PRA
Subject: South Coast Plaza Village
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when openmg attachments or haPs.
August 9, 2025 8.54PM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to strongly recommend and oommmd the Segerstrom Family for their outstanding contributions to
the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) and their unwavering support of our shulent_, teachers, and
schools_
Through their sponsorship of the DisneyMxuicals in Schools program- the Segerstrom. Family has empoi%Tred
our teachers to produce high-gtiality musical theater productions xvith their shidents_ This initiative not only
cultivates creativity, collaboration, and communication skills_ but also fasters confidence in students who might
never have stepped on stage beforeln addition, they ha, T prm�ded our students with remarkable oppornmities
by inviting my class to participate in the On Stage at the Center program- presented by the Segerstrom Center
for the Arts- This program provides live performances designed specifically for local students dining the school
day, making arts and culhue more accessible and inspiring to yo mg learners who might not otbennse
experience live theater -
Perhaps most telling of their character was their quiet generosity fallo%; iug a break-in at my school- After
hearing of the incident, the Segerstrom Family- personally donated funds to replace items destroyed by vandals.
They did so withmit any desire for recogaitioii specifically requesting tliat their kindness remain private --an
extraordinary testament to their humility and gentime care for our community
The egerstrom Family is an exceptional comnnmity partner whose assistance to SAUSD is both impactfiil and
deeply vah r& Tl unr continued commitment to enriching the lives of our students strengthens our schools and
DUE city-
sincerely -
Michael Haasoq -Ed.
Sth Grade Teacher
Grem ille Fundamental
3400 Litt St.
Santa Ana, California 92704
City of Santa Ana
IfDNI
August 2025
017
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Santa Ana Unified Sehoal district E-MAIL CONFIOENT1ALrFY NOTICE: This a -mail ocnrnunication and any attachmems- including downents, files,
or previous email messages, oanstitute electronic communications within the scope of the Electron ;z Camrnunicatians Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510 et al.
This e-Fnal wrnmunication may contain non-puhlic, cnrrfideMBl or legal'y priv leged i rfcrrnat o£ intended for the sole use of the designated reoipierrti s).
The unaultwrixd and intentional ntercWion, use, cops' or disclosure of s..€h information, cr aRerrai ba do -SG- is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful
under applicable tam. If you have received this e-mill cornnunioaticn in error please inmediately notify the sender by return e-Inai and delete the
original e-Fnal from your system -
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
W
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 110: Michael Hanson, M.Ed., dated August 10, 2025
Response 110-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
31
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 111: Chris and Catey Reese, dated August 11, 2025 (1 page)
From; Christopher Reese
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:57AM
To; eComments, PRA
Subject: The Village & Segerstrom Family
Attention-. This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana- Use caution when openmg atbchments or hnks-
Dear Santa Ana Planning Commissioners,
We are IhInting as a parents of a recent students at Santiago Elementary Schaal to express my
heartfelt gratitude to the Segerstrom Family-- Several years ago, our Santiago Drama performing
arts pro gam- the only elementary school program of its kind in all of Orange bounty — was
returning from COVID and needed sustainability- Without parent and community funding, it we
have ceased to exist_
Thanksto the generous donation from the Segerstrom Family, the program not only survived but
flourished. Their support gave two years to build up for sustainably so we could secure grants and
additional funding to keep it going. Today, my children and hundreds of others have thrived
because of the investment the fanny- made in our community -
This is not just a program, it's a lifeline for students who might otherwise never have this
opportunity- Please know the Segerstrom Family's contributions have had a profound and lasting
impact on our school and community -
The Village is an investment in Santa Ana in the same way they investment 'in our families success -
I hope the city continues to understand, appreciate and support the family investment locally_ We
are excited to have this as part of our community -
Sincerely,
Chris & C:atey Reese
Santa Ana Residents & Santiago Elementary School Recent Alumni Family
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
32
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 111: Chris and Catey Reese, dated August 11, 2025
Response 111-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
33
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 112: Monica Daneshrad, dated August 11, 2025 (1 page)
From: Monica Daneshrad
Sent: Sunday, August 10, Y
To: CONSTITUENT SERVICES
Subject: Complaint
Hello,
I am an Irvine resident and I heard that you want to turn south coast village into housing_
Can you please not do that? I like going to Mlortons with ease and all that extra housing will make the area stressful and
hard to access_
Nobody wants high density every where. Please stop pandering to developers.
thanks,
Monica Daneshrad
C LUT ION: This email originated from G=Lde of the organization. DG not click links ar open attachments unless gau recogoixe the
sender and lumw the content Ls safe. Report any suspicion: aetivittes to the In& attan Techimlo ey Department.
City of Santa Ana
112-1
August 2025
34
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 112: Monica Daneshrad, dated August 11, 2025
Response 112-1: The commenter expresses opposition to the project and their opinion that the
extra housing will be stressful and hard to access the area. This comment will be forwarded to
the City's decision makers for their consideration. This comment does not address environmental
impacts within the purview of CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
35
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 113: Luz Suazo, dated August 11, 2025 (5 pages)
From: Suazo, Luz
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 9A5 AM
To: eCommentsr PBA
Cc:
Subject: Support for tine 5egers1tro m Family— Their Generosity Saved Our Ch ildren's Arts
Education
Attachments: 2025-08.05 Sarrtiago Parent Letters,docx
_ktteutiou: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Lase caution When opening attachments or Hales_
To whom it may concern,
Please find my letter of support for the Segerstromftnmly and appreciation for their generositym sating oux childum's
arts education
Sincerely,
Luz Suazo
SECURE Project Manager, Certified Clcuc Pract ticner
qwOglCenf Hugh Ngur-n, QC Clerk -Recorder
Gounly Administat on South
801 H. Ross Street. Santa AnaL CA Q701
Visit us atVWW.m
9ks.ribe to our newsletter
99
City of Santa Ana
113-1
August 2025
W
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
ubj ect: Support for the Segerstrom Family — Their Generosity Saved Our C hildren's
Arts Education
Lear Santa Ana Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as a parent of a 4th grader at Santiago Elementary School to express my
heartfelt gratitude to the Segerstrom Family. Several years ago, our beloved performing
arts program — the only er<enwntary school prog rom of its kind in all of Orange County
— was on the brink of disappearing. Without immediate funding, it would have ceased
to esdst.
Thanks to the generous donation from the Segersrroni Family, the program not only
survived but flourished. Their support gave us the critical bvo years we needed to secure
grants and additional funding to keep it going. Today, my child and hundreds of others
are learning confidence, teamwork, and creath itythrough the arts because of their gift.
This is not just a program; it's a lifeline for students who might otherwise never have
this opportunity. Please know the Segerstrom Family's contributions have had a
profound and lasting impact on our school and community.
Sincerely,
Lux Suazo
Santiago Elementary School
City of Santa Ana
113-2
August 2025
37
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Subject: ne Segerstrom Family's Support Changed My Child's Life
Dear Planning C,ommission'liembers,
As a parent, I have watched my daughter blossom thanks to Santiago Elements s
performing arts program. �%Ien we learned the program was going to be cut due to lack
of funding, our hearts sank. This was the one program that truly made my daughter
excited to go to school each day.
The Segerstrom Familys donation steppes in at the perfect moment. It didn't just save a
program; it saved my child's passion and self-confidence. Those two years they funded
bought our school the time to seek other grants and support to secure the program's
future. Without them, it -would have ended abruptly, and hundreds of lids would have
lost something irreplaceable.
On behalf of my family, I want to thank the Segerstroms for belie% ng in the importanoe
of arts education. Their generosity is shaping the lives of young students in ways that
will last a lifetime.
With gratitude,
[Parent Name]
Proud Santiago Elementary Parent
City of Santa Ana
113-2
cant_
August 2025
M
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Subject: The Segerstrom Family's Gift Strengthened Our Entire Con-imunity
Dear Conunissiioners,
I am writing to express strong support for the Segerstrom Family and to share hc,;v their
philanthropy saved a critical program in our co niniunity. Santiago Elementary School's
performing arts progranm is a unique treasure — it's the only one offered at the
elementary level in Orange County.
When funding was running out, we thought we had lost it forever. The Segerstrom
Family's donation provided the: bridge ive desperately needed. It gave us two years to
organize, apply for grants, and build a sustainable plan to keep the program alive. 19 3-2
Because of them, our students are: thriving — not just academically, but socially and coy.
emotionally.
Their generosity didn't just impact our school; it strengthened our canum,. rn , Parents,
teachers, and local organizations have rallied around this grogram h ec{z,.Lse the
Segerstroms gave us the chance to fight for it.
Thankyou for recognizing the tremendous value this familybrings to Santa Ana and
beyond.
Warm regards,
[Parent Name]
Santiago Elementary School Parent
City of Santa Ana August 2025
39
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Subject: Please Recognize the Lifesa, ping Role the Segerstroms Played in Our Arts
Program
Dear Members of the Santa Ana Planning Commission,
I pant to take a moment to highlight the incredible impact the Segerstrom Family has
had on Santiago Elementary School and our students. We wexe faced -with our one-of--a-
kind performing arts program being eliminated. For many children, this program is
their introduction to the arts — a chance to sing, dance, and express themselves in gays
that traditional academics cannot offer.
The Segerstroms' finely donation was not just financial help, it w-as a lifeline. It bought
us two precious years to seek additional funding and grants to secure the programs
future. Without that donation, the program would have ceased, and an entire generation
of students would have missed out on these opportunities.
e are forever grateful for their commitment to education and the arts. Their
contribution has changed lives and continues to do so today.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sinncerely-,
[Parent Name]
Parent, Szunhzo Elementary Schaal
City of Santa Ana
113-2
coat_
August 2025
40
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 113: Luz Suazo, dated August 11, 2025
Response 113-1: This comment is the email transmittal of the commenter's comment letter. No
further response is required.
Response 113-2: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
41
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 114: Long Nguyen, dated August 11, 2025 (1 page)
Horn: Long Nguyen
Sent: Monday, Augurt 11r 2025 9:55 AM
To: eCornmentsr PRA
Subject: S upport for the 5egerstra m Fa rn ily — Their Generosity Saved Our Ch i Idren's Arts
Education
-knentin u This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana_ Use caution w ben openmg atbchments or teaks_
Dear Santa Dina Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as a parent of a 61b grader at Santiago Elementary School to express my heartfelt
gratitude to the Segerstr= Family. Several years ago, our beloved performing arts program — the
only elementary schoolprograi n of its kind in all of Ora nge County — was on the brink of
disappearing. Without immediate funding, it would have ceased to exist.
Thanks to the generous donation from the Segerstrom Family, the program not only survived but
flourished. Their support gave us the critical two years we needed to swore grants and additional
funding to keep it going. Today, my child and hundreds of others are learning confidence, teamwork,
and creativity through the arts because of their gift.
This is not just a program, it's a lifeline for students who might otherwise newer have this opportunity.
Please know the Segerstrom Family's contributions have had a profound and ]acting impact on our
school and conununity.
Sincerely,
Long Nguyen
Santiago Elementary School
City of Santa Ana
11 4-1
August 2025
42
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 114: Long Nguyen, dated August 11, 2025
Response 114-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
43
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 115: Susana Guzman, dated August 11, 2025 (2 pages)
Fr:-nr: Susie Guzman
S ant: Monday, August 11r 2025 10:56 AM
T:.: eCommentsr PRA
Subject: Support for Segerstrom Family - The Village Santa Ana
Attachments: Support and Gratitude for the Segerstrom Family,pdf
Attention. Thu} email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution vAken openmg atbchments or teaks.
Dear P m g Commissioners_
I'm writing to share a personal letter of gratitude and support for the Segerstrom Family_ Their contribution to
comiumity programs like the Santiago Elementary School Drama Program in Santa Ana makes lasting impacts
on our students and community.
Please find my letter attached for ycnar consideration
Wart regards,
Susana C;uZm.-3n
City of Santa Ana
115-1
August 2025
44
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Subject: Support forth e Segerstrem Family —Their Generosity keeps giving back to
Arts Education at Santiago Elementary
Dear Santa Ana Planning Commissioners,
As a parent of tutu students at Santiago Elementary School —one in 4th grade and one
in 6th—I want to express my deepest gratitude and support to tkre Segerstrom Family
far their extraordinary generosity,
A few years ago, Santiago's Drama Program —one of the only ones like it in Orange
County --was about to be shut down because of a lack of funding. The Segerstrom
Family stepped in at just the right time, Their generous donation saved the program and
gave us two critical years to find new funding and keep it going,
Today, my 6th grader is a proud and passionate member of the Santiago Drama
Program, His experience has sparked a love for the performing arks and inspired him to
continue pursuing it in middle school and beyond.
As a parent and Drama Booster, I have witnessed firsthand the t ra nMo rmative impact
this program has --not just on my own children, but on hundreds of studer-is a :ross our
school_ It builds confidence, nurtures creativity, and gives children a sate space to
express themselves freely and without judgment,
The Segerstrom Family's support has left a lasting legacy on our school and community.
I am profoundly thankful for their contribution to our school and all other wonderful
contributions in our Santa Ana communities,
Sincerely,
Susana Guzman
Santiago Elementary School
City of Santa Ana
115-2
August 2025
45
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 115: Susana Guzman, dated August 11, 2025
Response 115-1: This comment is the email transmittal of the commenter's comment letter. No
further response is required.
Response 115-2: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
46
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Individual 116: Teri Brissae, dated August 11, 2025 (1 page)
From;
Teri Brissae
Sent;
Monday, August 11, 2025 12�07 PM
To;
eComments, PRA
Cc:
Marice De Pasquale
Subject:
Good Neighbor Letter- St Albans
-knention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links_
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
As a hxmeowner of our oommunity, as well as President of the St_ glans Homeowners Association, I am
writing to express what a goad neighbor the Segerstrom Family is and their approach throughout the planning
process for their proposed Vilaege project From the beginning, the Segerstroms have set a standard for what it
means to be a good neighbor --always available, responsive, and respectful of community concerns. I am so
appreciative for them keeping us up to date, the prompt responses and allowing myself and the Board to be
able to relay this information and keep our residents apprised of the development and allow them to be able to
ask questions as individual homeowners, in turn.
They have made the process transparent_ sharing information openly and in a timely manner_ This has given
our community the confidence that our voices were heard and our questions -were answered_ Most importantly,
they provided a direct point of contact who was not only knowledgeable but willing to -work -with us to address
any concerns as they arose and has kept us updated every other month or thereabouts_ This level of
accessibility and professionalism is rare, and it made a significant difference in fostering trust and
collaboration_ ance De Pasquale, has been nothing but professional and a pleasure to work_ Since St_ Albans
is located directly next door to the development, we will be impacted the most and we value her will ingress to
meet with us, her knowledge and expertise as well as enjoy the relationship we have built.
It is clear that the Segerstrom Family values be i ng part of this community and is committed to responsible,
thoughtful development. I appreciate their willingness to engage with us in a way that was not just procedural,
but gienuinely neighborly_
The Segerstroms have demonstrated that development can move forward while maintaining open
communication, transparency, and respect for existing neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Teri Brissae
Homeowner and President
St_ Alban's Community
City of Santa Ana
116-1
August 2025
47
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comment Letter 116: Teri Brissae, dated August 11, 2025
Response 116-1: The commenter expresses support for the Segerstrom Family and their
contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their
consideration. This comment does not address environmental impacts within the purview of
CEQA and, thus, no further response is required.
City of Santa Ana
August 2025
48
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
California Department of Transportation
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40
1 120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.aov
August 12, 2025
Mr. Jerry C. Guevara
Senior Planner
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92702
Dear Mr. Guevara:
Electronically Sent
uevara@santa-ana.o
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans),
supports cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) in developing
land use policies that promote public health, safety, and welfare near airports.
On July 16, 2025, Caltrans received the City of Santa Ana's draft Resolution No. 2025-
xx, which declared the City's intent to overrule the Orange County ALUC inconsistency
determination for the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Project) with the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). We appreciate
the opportunity to provide input on the City's proposed overrule.
Caltrans has reviewed the City's Findings included in the July 16, 2025 submittal, along
with the ALUC Staff Report and Inconsistency Determination Letter, both dated June
19, 2025. Based on this review, Caltrans has determined that the that the City's
Findings do not provide sufficient justification to support the proposed overrule.
Specifically, Caltrans disagrees with the following statement in the Findings: "The
residential and commercial land uses under the proposed Project are consistent with
the height standards of the AELUP."
The proposed building heights within the Project penetrate the FAA Part 77 Horizontal
Surface for JWA by up to 107 feet, as outlined in the ALUC Staff Report. The AELUP for
JWA, consistent with Section 2.1.3 in the AELUP, states that an FAA No Hazard
determination does not automatically equate to an ALUC finding of consistency. The
allowance of structures that exceed the 100:1 notification surface undermines the
intent of the AELUP to protect navigable airspace and ensure compatibility with
airport operations.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"
Mr. Guevara, Senior Planner
August 12, 2025
Page 2
Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21675.1(f)states: "If a city or county overrules the
commission... with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not
operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal
injury resulting from the city's or county's decision to proceed with the action,
regulation, or permit."
Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(a), please include this letter, along with the ALUC's
comments in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have
questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at
vincent.ray@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Vincent Ray
Aviation Planner
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
c: Julie Fitch, Executive Director, ALUC Orange County, jfitch@ocair.com
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"
R AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
ORANGE CO[�NTY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
.411U 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.2S2.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
August 15, 2025
Jerry C. Guevara, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Response to Notice of Intent to Overrule the ALUC's June 19, 2025
Inconsistent Determination for Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Guevara,
We are in receipt of your July 16, 2025 letter notifying the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) of the City of Santa Ana's intent to overrule ALUC's June 19, 2025 determination on
the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan. In accordance with Section 21676 of the Public
Utilities Code, the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the Notice Of Intent
(NOI) to Overrule and the draft findings for the above -referenced project. These comments
shall be included in the public record of a final decision to overrule the ALUC.
Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21678 states: "With
respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency
pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or
recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to
property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's
decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation."
Background
On June 19, 2025, the ALUC for Orange County found the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific
Plan to be inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne
Airport (JWA) on a 4-0 vote. The inconsistent finding was based on AELUP Sections 2.1.3 and
3.2.1. Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP indicates that a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation does not automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC. Section
3.2.1 states, "within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent
with the AELUP which ... permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect
adversely the continued operation of the airport; or pen -nits activities or facilities that would
affect adversely aeronautical operations." The proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan would
Village Santa Ana Specific flan
August t5, 2025
Page 2
allow buildings up to 25 stories and/or 315 feet which would penetrate the Part 77 Horizontal
Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
ALUC has the following additional comments regarding the Draft ALUC Overrule Findings
that were attached to the July 16, 2025 letter.
Response to Findingand nd Fact in„Support "a" - Regarding Height:
The City contends that the ALUC lacks evidence of the project's inconsistency with the
AELUP, citing three factors: (1) the proposed zone change would establish a specific plan
without defining the exact locations and heights of individual developments; (2)
Commissioners and staff relied on outdated information about tall buildings and instrument
procedures; and (3) despite the FAA Determinations of No Hazard, the ALUC found the project
inconsistent based on an "obstruction" determination. The findings mention an ALUC staff
reference to another city during the ALUC meeting, but this inadvertent reference was corrected
by staff during the meeting.
The proposed specific plan would allow for buildings with residential uses up to 25 stories and
315 feet in height, which would penetrate the 206 feet Horizontal Surface for JWA regardless
of where they are located within the specific plan boundaries. Such structures have potential to
adversely impact the continued operation of the airport and other aeronautical operations. The
applicant, South Coast Plaza, filed FAA Form 7460-1 notices for eight buildings up to 279 feet
tall —below the proposed maximum height of 315 feet. While the FAA issued determinations
of no hazard for eight buildings proposed up to 279 feet tall, it also found four buildings to be
obstructions under Part 77 standards, exceeding Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces by 26 to 107
feet. Although the project site's location was incorrectly referred to in the staff presentation to
the Commission, the location was accurately described in the written staff report and was
promptly corrected during the proceedings.
Response to Fact in Support "b" - Regarding Mitigation Measures:
The City states that during the June 19, 2025 meeting, City staff and the project applicant
provided additional information indicating that the City will review projects about the nature
of a specific plan, how implementing projects will be reviewed, information on existing high-
rises in the vicinity, FAA notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet in height,
and that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Project would
contain a mitigation measure requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all
lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of
operating aircraft. The City asserts that these measures would demonstrate further compliance
with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. The ALUC appreciates the
inclusion of these mitigation measures, however the ALUC determination was based on the fact
that the proposed specific plan would allow for buildings with residential uses up to 25 stories
and above 315 feet in height which would not only be an Obstruction under Part 77 but could
pose a public safety issue and impact the operations of the airport and aeronautical operations,
by allowing development to enter airspace reserved for air navigation.
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
August 0, 2025
Page 3
Response to Fact in Support "c" - RegardingNoise:
The City states that because the project is located outside of the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise
contours, and because mitigation measures will be required that the project is consistent with
the AELUP. While the ALUC appreciates that the project will not place residents within. the 60
and 65 dBA noise contours, noise was not a factor in ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Res onse to Fact in Su ort "d" - Regarding Safety.
The City states that because the project is outside of the Safety Zones and runway protection
zone for JWA, and because the City will require FAA Determinations of No Hazard to Air
Navigation that the project is consistent with the AELUP. The applicant, South Coast Plaza,
filed Notices of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) for eight buildings in
the project area with heights up to 279 feet above ground level, which is less than the proposed
maximum height of 315 feet. On September 6, 2004, the FAA issued Determinations of No
Hazard to Air Navigation for all thirty-seven 7460-1's submitted for the project. However, FAA
determined that four of the buildings would be Obstructions under Part 77 standards and would
exceed the Obstruction Surfaces by 26 to 107 feet. In addition, the FAA conditioned that the
buildings be marred and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 M,
Obstruction Marking and Lighting.
Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP states, "within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be
found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which ... permits structures of excessive height in
areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport; or permits activities
or facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations." Moreover, a finding of No
Hazard to Air Navigation from the FAA does not equate to a consistency determination by the
ALUC. The ALUC may find a project inconsistent based on other determinations. The ALUC
may also utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at airports which may differ from
those contained in Part 77, if evidence of health, welfare, or air safety justify such an action.
Response to Fact in Support "e" - Regarding Height:
The proposed project area is located within the FAA Part 77 Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary
Surface for JWA which would be penetrated at 206' above mean sea level (AMSL). The
airspace above 206' AMSL. is reserved for air navigation. The Specific Plan would allow
buildings up to 25 stories and/or 315 feet in height and therefore would penetrate the Horizontal
Surface and enter airspace reserved for air navigation.
In Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP for JWA, the Commission has incorporated the standards for
height limits for determining obstructions and has incorporated the definitions of "imaginary
surfaces" for airports as defined in the FAA Part 77. The "imaginary surfaces" are defined by
means of elevations heights and slopes in relation to individual airports, the spaces above which
are reserved for air navigation. To ensure the safe operation of aircraft activity at JWA,
structures anywhere in the JWA airport planning area should not exceed the applicable
elevations defined in Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space).
Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
August 15, 2025
Page a
Response to Fact in Su ort " 1" - Regarding Overflight:
The June 19, 2025, ALUC staff report included flight tracks in relation to the project site on
three separate days in March of 2025. The ALUC recommends that the maximum structure
heights, including all rooftop equipment and/or architectural details, be reduced to below 206
feet AMSL, in order to protect the airspace reserved for air navigation.
Response to Fact in Support " " - Regarding Heliports:
As the City states, heliports were not included as part of this project, therefore heliports were
not reviewed by ALUC.
Response to Fact in Support "h" - Regarding Zone Change:
Finding "h" summarizes Findings "a" through "g" and refers to flight tracks and the project
being located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. The inconsistent finding by ALUC was
not based on flight tracks and noise contours but was based on the fact that the proposed Village
Santa Ana Specific Plan would allow buildings to penetrate the Part 77 Horizontal Surface for
JWA and enter airspace reserved for air navigation.
We urge the City Council to take ALUC's concerns into consideration in its deliberations prior
to deciding whether to overrule ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these
comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen Beverburg
Vice -Chairman
Attachment: Santa Ana NOI to Overrule ALUC letter dated July 16, 2025
cc: Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
Vincent Ray, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org/pba
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA, CA
The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision -making process. The
following notice is being provided so that you can ask questions, make comments, and stay
informed about projects that might be important to you. We encourage you to contact us prior
to the Public Hearing if you have any questions.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to
receive public testimony and will take action on the items described below.
Project Location: The project site includes 11 addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661
West Sunflower Avenue; 3820, 3840, and 3951 South Plaza Drive; and 3811 and 3851 South Bear
Street) and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-207 412-131-217 412-451-017 412-451-027 412-451
03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to as 1561 West Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site") located
within the Specific Development No. 48 (SD-48) zoning district.
Project Applicant: Justin McCusker with South Coast Plaza, on behalf of South Coast Plaza
("Applicant" and "Property Owner")
Proposed Project: Applicant is requesting approval of various entitlements to facilitate the
establishment of a new Specific Plan (SP) that would allow the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed -use urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space, 300,000 square feet of office space, and 13.8 acres of public and private
outdoor and recreation space ("Project"). The Project entitlements include Amendment Application No.
2025-01 to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (SP-6) and to change the zoning district
designation of the subject property from SD-48 to SP-6, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06
(County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project site into six buildable lots, and Development
Agreement No. 2025-01 outlining terms and conditions for the Project. The Project also requires
overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination of inconsistency for the
Project with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Project
requires: (1) certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR No. 2025-01 and
SCH No. 2020029087); (2) adoption of Environmental Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration; and (3) adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). The SEIR
concludes that the proposed Project would require mitigation related to Air Quality, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Impacts related to Recreation would remain
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Action Taken by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2025: Recommended that the City
Council adopt the following: a resolution (1) certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 2025-01 (SCH No. 2020029087), (2) adopting Environmental Findings of Fact and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project, (3) adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the project, and (4) approving the Project; an ordinance approving Amendment
Application No. 2025-01 establishing The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6) and
approving a zone change for the Project Site located at 1561 W. Sunflower Avenue from Specific
Development No. 48 to Specific Plan No. 6; an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2025-
01; a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159), as
conditioned; and a resolution Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's
determination that The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land
Use Plan of John Wayne Airport, including supportive findings.
VOTE: 7-0 (Ayes: Commissioners Benninger, Escamilla, Leo, Oliva, Pham, Ramos, Woo).
Meeting Details: This public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, at 5:30 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in -person or join via Zoom.
For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit
https://www.santa-ana.org/agendas-and-minutes/.
Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments
by e-mail to eComment(o)santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to
Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza — M30, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments is two hours prior to the start of the meeting. Comments received
after the deadline may not be distributed to the City Council but will be made part of the record.
Where To Get More Information: All staff reports regarding any item on this agenda are available for
public inspection in the City Clerk's Office during regular business hours and posted on the City's website
the Tuesday before a Council meeting at: https://www.santa-ana.org/agendas-and-minutes/.
Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Jerry Guevara with
the Planning and Building Agency at JGuevara(o)santa-ana.org or (714) 647-5481.
Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Si tiene preguntas en espanol, favor de Ilamar a Gema Zapien (714) 667-2732.
Neu can lien lac bang tieng Viet, xin dien thoai cho Kristie Ha (714) 667-2206.
Jennifer L. Hall, CMC
City Clerk
Published: Orange County Reporter - Legals Section
Date: September 5, 2025