Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-107 - Proposed Addington Multi-Family Residential ProjectLS 11.19.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2018021031), (3) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, (4) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (5) APPROVING THE PROPOSED ADDINGTON MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET 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: WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant") seeks to develop the Addington Multi -Family Residential Project ("proposed Project"), originally proposed as a 496-unit multi -family residential project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City's elected officials, the Applicant has proposed modifications to the original proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot for residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana ("City") and Applicant; (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) designation; and Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 1 of 11 WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") (SCH# 2018021031) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01), and approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the northeast corner of North Main Street and Edgewood Road and the properties immediately adjacent to the site include Santiago Park to the north, single-family residential homes to the south and east and the Discovery Science Center of Orange County across Main Street to the west. The Project Site is located on North Main Street, an urban corridor within the City. The Project Site is also located at a main entry point to the Park Santiago Neighborhood, a residential neighborhood predominantly comprised of detached single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was required; and WHEREAS, after conducting the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the proposed Project's potential to have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to Aesthetics regarding scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; to Agriculture and Forestry Resources regarding farmland; agricultural land, forest land timberland or conversion of; to Biological Resources regarding wetlands, conflicts with a tree preservation policy or ordinance, conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Geology and Soils regarding a known earthquake fault, landslides, or soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or waste water disposal; to Hazards regarding sites listed on a hazardous materials site, an airport land use plan, private airstrip or wildland fires; to Hydrology and Water Quality regarding housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; to Land Use and Planning regarding conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Mineral Resources regarding loss of a mineral resource to the region or locally; to Noise regarding conflicts with an airport land use plan or private airstrip; Population and Housing regarding displacing existing housing necessitating replacement housing or Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 2 of 11 LS 11.19.19 displacing substantial number of persons necessitating construction of replacement housing; to Transportation/Traffic regarding a change in air traffic patterns; to Utilities and Service Systems regarding federal, state and local solid waste regulations would have no impact or be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on February 12, 2018, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research 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 - stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Initial Study were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City's website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); 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 March 1, 2018, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, one hundred and sixty-three (163) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the proposed Project, addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to Aesthetics with the implementation of mitigation measures regarding the existing visual character of the Project Site and its surroundings, as implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Santiago Park, Edgewood Road, and North Bush Street; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on August 7, 2018; and Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 3 of 11 WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City - provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public - and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register - at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City's website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(i); and WHEREAS, in response to a request from Chatten-Brown & Cartens LLP, on behalf of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the Draft Environmental Impact Report public review and comment period to October 4, 2018 to allow additional time for public review and input; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 59-day review period, from August 7, 2018 to October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the 59-day public 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 WHEREAS, the City received forty-four (44) written comment letters and six (6) verbal comments on the Draft EIR at the August 27, 2018 public hearing, including a written acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on November 15, 2018, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than ten (10) days prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2018, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second study Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 4 of 11 LS 11.19.19 session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received (twenty-five (25) in support; thirty (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral) and eleven (11) written comments were received (two (2) in support and nine (9) in opposition); and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48) opposed it and one speaker was neutral. 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 not certify the EIR or adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct the duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131) members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it. Furthermore, one hundred and sixty-six (166) written comments were received with nine (9) in support and one hundred and fifty-seven (157) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted that the applications go back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration after further consultation with the community; and WHEREAS, in June 2019, the applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of development 347 multi -family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces (1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4- story residential building wrapped around a five -level parking structure with an amenity deck on the sixth -level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93- acre site (the "June Revised Plan"); and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the June Revised Plan. At the meeting, seventy- seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 5 of 11 one speaker was neutral. In addition, one -hundred (100) written comments were i received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the applicant submitted a further revised plan including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot which also reduced the Project's height, increased the Project's setbacks, and modified the Project entrance ("October Modified Project"); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared "Clarifications to the Final EIR" to determine if the October Modified Project would result in new or substantially increased environmental effects than those analyzed in the EIR such that the EIR would require recirculation prior to its certification; and WHEREAS, the Clarifications to the Final EIR include detailed analysis, based upon substantial evidence, that demonstrate that the Modified Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts than are disclosed in the EIR, no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the EIR are required, and no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-two (62) expressed opposition and two (2) in expressed support the project. In addition, ninety-eight (98) individuals submitted comments with ninety-four (94) in opposition and four (4) in support; and WHEREAS, after hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission by a vote of 3:2, voted to recommend denial of the project. Since the entitlements require final action by the City Council, the actions were forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2019, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 6 of 11 LS 11.19.19 Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the October Modified Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, and all attachments and appendices to both the Final EIR and the Clarifications to the Final EIR, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council 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 State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are 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 not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 7 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 8 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 9 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A'; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 9.17 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 7 of 11 WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that - would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 10 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as "Exhibit A"; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 11 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the proposed Project's environmental impacts are described in Section 12 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City Council and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR 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; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 2. 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 Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY: Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 8 of 11 LS 11.19.19 1. Adopts the Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." 2. Certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 3. Adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", after balancing the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the benefits of the Project. 4. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C", consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; and find that in the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 5. 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 (5) working days of the City Council's final Project approval. Section 2. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant has agreed to and 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 proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, 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 Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 9 of 11 of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 3. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this 19th day of November , 2019. _ ,oe U �!� u- rid o APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:� Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers Iglesias, Penaloza Sarmiento Solorio(4) NOES: Councilmembers Bacerra,Pulido, Villegas (3) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None (0) NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers None (0) CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-107 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on November 19, 2019. Date: // Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 10 of 11 LS 11.19.19 Resolution No. 2019-107 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINAL FIR FOR THE MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 1.0 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approval of the Project (Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the State of California Public Resources Code). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states: 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. b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials The CEQA Guidelines are codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing at section 15000. Resolution No. Page 1 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides that: 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, or 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 FIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final FIR 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. The City of Santa Ana, as lead agency, having received, reviewed and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (currently known as "The Addington") (Project), the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and the Clarifications to the Final FIR (Clarifications), SCH No. 2018021031, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, hereby adopts the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City of Santa Ana for the development and operation of the Project. This action includes the approval of the DEIR SCH No. 2018021031. 1.2 Organization/Format of Findings These Findings have been organized into the following sections: • Section 1.0: Introduction, provides the organization and records information for these Findings. • Section 2.0: Project Location, provides a summary of the location of the Project. • Section 3.0: Project Description, provides a summary of the Project, including an overview of the discretionary actions required for Project approval and a statement of the Project objectives. • Section 4.0: Discretionary Actions, provides a list of the discretionary approvals that are required by the Project. • Section 5.0: Statement of Project Objectives, provides the statement of objective sought by the Project. Resolution No. Page 2 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Section 6.0: Environmental Review and Public Participation provides a description of the CEQA process conducted for the Project. • Section 7.0: Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level, provides the Findings for the impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of regulations that reduce impacts and project -specific mitigation measures. • Section 8.0: Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance, provides the Findings for impacts that can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of regulations that reduce impacts, Project Design Features (PDFs), and mitigation measures. • Section 9.0: Effects Determined Not to be Significant, provides the Findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be less than significant as a result of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) and/or analysis within the EIR. • Section 10.0: Significant Irreversible Environmental Change and Energy Use. • Section 11.0: Growth Inducing Effects, provides the Findings regarding the CEQA-required analysis for growth inducement. • Section 12.0: Alternatives, provides Findings regarding project alternatives. 1.3 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of, but is not limited to, the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project • The DEIR, including all technical studies included in the appendices for the Project • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the pubic during the public review comment period on the DEIR • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed Project • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • All documents, studies, EIRs or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR including Clarifications • The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the Project and all documents incorporated by reference therein • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) Resolution No. Page 3 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • The Final FIR for the Project, including the "Clarifications to the Final EIR" 1.4 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, California, 92701. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. 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 City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e). 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate (I)-5. The site is located on the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-5 and the N. Main Street exit; and local access to the Project site is provided by N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The Project site consists of 6 contiguous parcels that include Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 003-010- 028, 003-010-01, 003-010-03, 003-010-025, 003-010-026, 003-010-030 and is located within the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Orange County 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. 3.0 3.1 Originally Proposed Project As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would redevelop the 5.9- acre Project site to provide 496 for -rent multi -family residential units. The residences would be provided within approximately 572,075 square feet of residential structures. The development would be 5 stories and be topped with mezzanines reaching approximately 65-feet 8-inches in height. The development would tier down to 2-stories (slightly over 20-feet in height) on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units would be wrapped around a 358,630 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure with a roofline of approximately 90 feet from the ground surface, which is the highest point of the Project. The Project would result in approximately 930,705 square feet of development and a density of 84 dwelling units per acre, and would provide a mix of studio, one -bedroom, two -bedroom, and three - bedroom units, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Residential Unit Summary (Originally Proposed Project) Unit Type Number of Units Square Footage of Units Percentage' Studio 73 590 — 740 15% 1 Bedroom 307 610 — 1,090 62% 2 Bedroom 88 910 — 1,470 18% 3 Bedroom 28 1,360 — 1,520 6% Total 496 100% 'Rounded to the nearest oereentme. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the residential units would be setback a minimum of 40 feet from the cement block wall that forms the eastern Project site boundary and would be separated by 4 courtyards and landscaped areas. The central parking structure would have 9 levels of parking, one of which would be underground; thus, 8 levels of parking would be above ground. The Resolution No. Page 4 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR parking structure would provide direct access to the leasing office and walkways to residential units, a bicycle parking/sharing station, and 904 parking spaces, which is an average of 1.8 spaces per residential unit. The parking spaces would include 122 tandem spaces, 25 electric vehicle charging stations, and 21 spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The parking structure would also provide direct access to the fitness center, club room, and amenity deck located on top of the western portion of the structure. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would provide open space and recreation facilities that includes approximately 34,300 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities and 6,960 square feet of indoor recreation facilities that would contain: 5 recreational courtyard areas, a rooftop amenity deck and fitness center on the roof of the parking structure, community room, and a wellness center. hi addition, each residential unit includes a private patio or balcony area. The open space, recreation areas, and other amenities are listed in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Project Open Space / Recreation Amenities (Originally Proposed Project) Open Space Approximate Square Footage Open Space Recreational Courtyards 1-5 22,900 Wellness Center 1,600 Community Room 4,700 Resident Services Business Center 3,900 Bic cle Repair Room 280 Dog Wash Room 40 Fitness Center 5,400 Amenity Deck not including Fitness Center 11,400 As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would provide vehicular access via a driveway on N. Main Street that would guide vehicles to the parking structure that provides direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. The Project was also originally proposed to implement a secondary access from either Santiago Park (Option B) or Edgewood Road (Option C). Additionally, separate emergency access would be provided from Edgewood Road by knoxbox-gated entrances and onsite emergency lanes that meet the City's Fire Code requirements. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would connect to the existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure in the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road right-of-ways. • Water Infrastructure: The Project would install new water infrastructure on the Project site that would connect to the existing 16-inch water pipelines in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The new onsite water system would be compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code (Title 24) for efficient use of water. Wastewater Infrastructure: Wastewater from the Project site currently discharges into existing City -owned 6- and 12-inch sewer lines within Edgewood Road. The Project would install a new onsite sewer system that connects to the existing sewer lines in Edgewood Road. Drainage Infrastructure: Surface runoff from the site is conveyed within onsite curb and gutters to an existing catch basin in N. Main Street and sheet flows to an existing drain inlet at the south- west corner of the parking lot. In addition, sheet flows on the north side of the building flow to the existing 10-inch storm water drain that conveys unfiltered runoff to Santiago Creek. The Project would cap this existing 10-inch storm water drain. It would remain in place but would no longer Resolution No. Page 5 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR be used. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas, catch basins, and storm water drains that would be installed as part of the Project and would be sized to meet the Project's needs. The onsite system would connect to the existing City drain system in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which discharges to Santiago Creek. 3.2 Modified Project Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR and preparation of the Final FIR for the Project, the Project applicant submitted a revised development proposal to the City (Modified Project). The Modified Project proposes reducing the number of residential units by 48 percent, reducing the scale of the structures, surface level parking and revising the vehicular access to the site. Specifically, the Modified Project would development the Project site with 256 multi -family residential units surrounding a central parking garage. The residential units are proposed to be provided within approximately 277,281 square feet of residential structures that range between 2 and 4 stories in height. The 2-story residential structures (24- feet, 8-inches in height) would be located on the eastern portion of the site, and be setback a minimum of 90-feet from the eastern boundary of the site with the inclusion of a surface level parking lot. The 3-story residential structures (36-feet, 9-inches in height) would be located both behind the 2-story structures. The remainder of the residential structures would be 4-stories (49-feet, 5-inches in height). The setback of the building along the southern boundary (Edgewood Road) has been increased from 13 feet to approximately 134-feet, with inclusion of a surface parking lot. The residential units would be developed around a 167,253-square foot central parking structure that would have one level of parking underground and 5 levels of parking aboveground. The structure would be centrally located on the site, and be approximately 59-feet in height. The highest point of the Modified Project would be the top of the elevator tower to the amenity deck on top of the parking structure, which would be approximately 75 feet from the ground. Table 1: Proposed Project Modifications Project Characteristic Original PrQiect (per EIR) Modified Project Change Number of Units 496 units 256 units -240 units Density of Residential 84 units per acre 58 units per acre* -26 units per acre* Development Area Residential Unit Mix Studio: 73 units — 15% Studio: 74 units — 29% Studio: +1 units 1 bdr: 307 units — 62% 1 bdr: 103 units — 40% 1 bdr: -204 units 2 bdr: 88 units — 18% 2 bdr: 75 units — 29% 2 bdr: -13 units 3 bdr: 28 units — 6% 3 bdr: 4 units — 2% 3 bdr: -24 units Residential Unit Sizes Studios: 590 — 740 SF Studios: 560 — 590 SF Average unit size is 1 bdr: 610 — 1,090 SF 1 bdr: 630 — 930 SF smaller 2 bdr: 910 — 1,470 SF 2 bdr: 910 — 1,180 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 —1,520 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 SF Stories of Residential 2 to 5 stories with 2 to 4 stories -1 story Structures mezzanines Maximum Height of 65-feet 8-inches 49-feet 5-inches -16-feet 3-inches Residential Structures Height of Parking Structure 90 feet (7 above -ground 59 feet (5 above -ground -31 feet Roofline levels) levels Highest Structure Fitness Center Roofline on Elevator Tower Roofline -15 feet 5 inches Western portion of the towards western portion Amenity Deck — 90 feet of site — 74 feet 5-inches. Resolution No. Page 6 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Project Characteristic Original Project erEIR Modified Project Change Building Setback from 40 foot minimum 90 foot minimum +50 feet Eastern Side Boundary Building Setback from Between 10 feet and 13 feet 134 feet 6-inches +121 feet Southern Side Boundary 4 inches Size of Subterranean Parking 1 level 40,000 square feet 1 level 26,700 square feet -13,300 square feet Parking — Total 904 total spaces 511 spaces dedicated -393 dedicated spaces 691 including shared parking Spaces Per Unit 1.8 2.0 dedicated +0.2 dedicated 2.7 w/ shared parking +0.9 w/ shared arkin Tandem Spaces 122 0 122 Electric Vehicle Sp aces 1 25 15 -10 ADA Spaces 1 21 12 -9 Notes: bdr — bedroom, SF — square feet; w/ — with; w/o — without s not including the OC Discovery Cube shared parking area of 1.42 acres As shown, the proposed Modified Project would reduce the development by 240 units; from 496 units to 256 units, a 48 percent reduction. The proposed Modified Project's residential structures would be one- story lower in height and eliminate mezzanines (approximately 16-feet lower), reduce the residential density by 26 units per acre, and be separated from the eastern side of the site by an additional 50 feet in increased setback when compared to the Project as originally proposed. The height of the centrally located parking structure would be reduced by approximately 31 feet and the highest point of the proposed structures would be 15 feet lower. The Modified Project would provide 12,920 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities; this is a reduction of 9,980 square feet from the 22,900 square feet of exterior open space that was included in the Original Project. The types of exterior recreational amenities proposed for the Modified Project are similar to those described in the FIR and includes 3 open space courtyards, and a rooftop amenity deck. The Modified Project also reduces interior amenities by 12,799 square feet, as a result of removing the originally proposed Wellness Center, Community Room, Resident Services/Business Center, Bicycle Repair Room, Dog Wash Room, and reducing the size of the Fitness Center. Consistent with the Original Project, the proposed Modified Project would provide vehicular access by a driveway on N. Main Street that would guide vehicles to the parking structure and provide direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. An optional access was proposed at the intersection of Walkie Way and Main Street. However, the Modified Project proposes to created a single shared access for Santiago Park and the Project. To do this the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive will be redesigned. Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive will shift to the south creating an off -set intersection. Santiago Park and the Project will share access from the relocated street. The existing gated vehicular entry along Main Street to Santiago Park would be permanently closed. The proposed emergency access to the Project site would continue to be provided from Edgewood Road by a knoxbox gated entrance and onsite emergency lanes that meet the City's Fire Code requirements. 3.3 Project Design Features A reduction in the number of electric vehicle charging stations are proposed. The Original Project included at least 25 electric vehicle charging stations and the Modified Project includes at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. No other changes in Project Design Features (PDFs) are proposed. The Project has been Resolution No. Page 7 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR designed to incorporate the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that would prevent or lessen potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. These PDFs will be implemented in the same manner as mitigation measures. PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. PDF-2: The Project will include at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. PDF-3: The Project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash -free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off -site. PDF-5: The Project will include safety design features for security, such as low -intensity security lighting, key pads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. 3.4 Construction Activities and Schedule The Project would be developed over an 18-month period, in one construction phase that includes the following stages: (1) demolition of existing building, pavement, removal of infrastructure and some landscaping; (2) grading and excavation; (3) construction of drainage, utilities, and subgrade infrastructure; (4) building construction; and (5) paving and application of architectural coatings. No units will be leased until construction of the entire Project is completed and occupancy permits have been received from the City. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and excluding Sundays and federal holidays, which would be consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18-314; Special Provisions). However, typical construction activities would occur Monday through Friday, generally 20 days a month. Initial site preparation would include demolition of the existing building and several areas of asphaltic concrete pavements. Demolition would remove all subsurface remnants, including foundations, floor slabs, and any utilities that will not be reutilized with the new development. It is anticipated that a maximum of 120 construction workers would be onsite at one time, which would occur during the building construction phase. Resolution No. Page 8 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 4.0 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the Project requires several actions by the City, including: Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 201802103 1). Certification of the Final FIR (SCH No. 2018021031) evaluating the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Pubic Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The Final FIR provides additional environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City as part of Project implementation. The Final FIR includes "Clarifications to the Final EIR" which describes the Modified Project and analyzes the potential of the Modified Project to result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. • General Plan Land Use Amendment. The Project requires City approval of General Land Use Amendment, which would change the General Plan Land Use designation of the Project area from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC), which allows residential uses to a maximum density of 90 dwelling units per acre. Amendment Application for a Zone Change. The Project requires approval of an Amendment Application from the City for a zone change a c from Professional (P) to Specific Development (SD). The SD zone provides site specific development standards. • Development Agreement. To guide development and services as described in the Project Description previously pursuant to a contract between the City of Santa Ana and Project Applicant. 5.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives support the project's underlying purpose to develop multi -family residential uses on the project site and assist with meeting the City's housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high -quality housing. • Increase high -quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeways, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. Resolution No. Page 9 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project. • The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for a 30-day public review period, which commenced on February 12, 2018, and ended on March 13, 2018. The NOP was distributed to all public agencies, trustee agencies, and the State Office of Planning and Research; posted in the OC Register, posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website; and provided for public review at the Santa Ana Public Library and at the City's Planning Division counter. • Based on the Initial Study and Environmental Check List Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G), the City staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to allow public agencies, local residents, and interested persons an opportunity to review the Project and provide input on issues to be addressed in the FIR. The scoping meeting was held on March 1, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the First Congressional Church of Santa Ana, located at 2555 Santiago Street. Notice of the scoping meeting was sent to state and local agencies, cities, individuals who expressed interest in the Project and notice of the meeting was also included in the Notice of Preparation. • The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Section 2.4, Areas of Controversy of the DEIR summarizes the issues identified for analysis. • The DEIR was originally made available for a 45-day public review period from August 7, 2018 to September 20, 2018. The public review period was then extended to 59-days (an additional 2 weeks to October 4, 2018) in response to a request from the public. The Notice of Completion was sent to all interested persons, agencies, cities and organizations and notice posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and in the OC Register. The Notice of Completion was also sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to additional public agencies. Copies of the DEIR were made available on the City's website at: http://santa- ana.org/pba/planning/2525mainresidentialdevelopment.asp, and at the following locations: o City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701 o City of Santa Ana Public Library, 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 • On August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Notice of the meeting was posted in the OC Register and mailed to property owner and occupants within 500 feet. • On November 15, 2018, the City released the Final FIR which consists of the Draft FIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft FIR, written responses to all written comment letters received, revisions to the Draft FIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. • On November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019. • On January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the FIR. 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 not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the Resolution No. Page 10 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project. • On February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EK Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the FIR. The public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019. • On February 19, 2019, the City Council continued a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the EIR. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted that the project be taken back to the Planning Commission after further consultation with staff, Applicant and community to address comments and concerns raised. • After further consultation with the public, the Applicant submitted the Modified Project to the City, which reduced the total number of proposed multi -family dwelling units to 256 and include surface level parking, and also reduced the Project's height, increased the Project's setbacks, and modified the Project entrance. • The City then prepared "Clarifications to the Final FIR" (October 2019) which included detailed analysis, based upon substantial evidence, that demonstrate that the Modified Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts than are disclosed in the EK no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the FIR are required, and no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. 7.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the FIR, in the and in this document, the following environmental impact cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore required. The following summary describes the adverse impacts of the Project that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of standard regulatory requirements, PDFs, and all feasible mitigation measures. 7.1 Aesthetics 7.1.1 Visual Character Threshold: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR, with implementation of the Project, views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area would change from setback views of the existing 2-story office building partially screened by mature landscaping to that of forefront views of the 5-story residential building, with a landscaped tree buffer directly adjacent to the park. This would result in a significant and unavoidable change in views of the Project site from the park. The difference in scale and height, due to the Project's location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property Resolution No. Page 11 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) In addition, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street. The background views of urban buildings would become forefront views, and the proposed size and scale of the Project would substantially increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure adjacent to the roadway and limited of visual setback buffer, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria Thus, the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street would be significant. (DEK pp. 4.1-21.) The Project includes the following PDF that would reduce the visual impacts of the Project: • PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. (DEIR, p. 3-18.) In addition, Mitigation Measure AES-1 require measures be implemented to retain and protect the trees along the eastern and southern Project site boundary and would reduce these impacts. Mitigation Measure AES-I provides: Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed Project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report: • If the wall along the eastern boundary of the Project site cannot be heightened in -place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. • Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. • Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist's recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. • Prior to construction, a one -pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis' soil supplement recommendations. • Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the Resolution No. Page 12 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab's testing and recommendations. • Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well -composted, coarse -texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor'/2 to 11/2" particle size. Apply it 2-inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. • Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. • Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high- pressure nozzle. • During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. • Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the Project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip -line of the tree. o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. • Any damages or injuries should be reported to the Project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. However, even with implementation of the PDF-I and Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Project would still result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria. As a result, impacts related to existing visual character or quality of the site would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Consistent with the methodology in the EIR, photo -simulations were also prepared to demonstrate the degree of visual change that would result from implementation of the Modified Project. The photo - simulations show that, as described in the FIR, the Modified Project would alter the existing views by development of forefront residential buildings that would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria related to visual character from specific viewpoints. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project. The contrast in views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus; although impacts related to specific viewpoints would remain significant and unavoidable, no new or greater impacts would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EK Section 3.1.) Resolution No. Page 13 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The City hereby finds that feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified in the DEIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, PDFs, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures have reduced potential impacts to a level of less than significant as determined by the City. All of the PDFs and mitigation measures will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in order to ensure compliance with all conditions adopted by the City. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to PDFs or existing regulations that reduce environmental impacts, the FIR and these Findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: 8.1 Air Quality 8.1.1 Exposure of Substantial Pollutant Concentrations to Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project has the potential to exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds for emissions of PMlo during construction activities. Therefore, SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 to reduce particulate matter and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring the construction contractor to use off -road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/GARB Tier 3 emissions standards, would be implemented to reduce construction emissions below a level of significance. With implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 that would be confirmed through the City's permitting process for the Project, localized construction emissions of PMto would be below SCAQMD thresholds and reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off -road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/GARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-AQ-1), the Project's impact in Air Quality would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi -family residential units. However, the same construction Resolution No. Page 14 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final FIR, Section 3.2.) 8.2 Biological Resources 8.2.1 Movement of Fish or Wildlife Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Findings: Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR identified that the Project could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The 180 mature ornamental trees on the Project site provide potentially suitable foraging and breeding habitat for nesting migratory birds and raptor species associated with urban areas such as red-tailed hawk, red -shouldered hawk, and Cooper's hawk. The Project includes removal of many of the existing trees on the Project site that could disrupt nesting birds and raptors if vegetation is removed or construction begins during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Disruption of migratory nesting birds and raptors is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site during nesting season, including: vegetation removal, disking, demolition activities, and grading. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts related to nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non -raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-BIO-1), the Project's impact on Biological Resources would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would avoid potential impacts through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. Because the Modified Project increases the distance of the building footprint from nesting sites in the existing trees and Resolution No. Page 15 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR vegetation on site, it would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.3.) 8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8.3.1 Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to hazards were evaluated in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR. As described, due to the existence of hazardous materials within on - site soils, ground disturbing activity has the potential to result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been required to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. Due to the existence of hazardous materials within on -site soils, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of arsenic impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all arsenic impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CaIOSHA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards of the onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential Resolution No. Page 16 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-HAZ-1), the Project's potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve handling of hazardous materials and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level such that no new or greater impacts related to hazardous materials would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.6.) 8.4 Noise 8.4.1 Noise Levels in Excess of Established Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would not result in generation of noise levels in excess standards established bythe City's Municipal Code. Per Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The Project's construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the Project would be in compliance with the City's construction related noise standards. Resolution No. Page 17 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR However, the Project has the potential to result in exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of relevant standards as a result of increased traffic -related noise. As discussed in the DEIR, traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate noise that could exceed interior noise standards within some of the Project units. Thus, some of the residential units would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with increased Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to meet the interior noise standards. As described in Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, the residential units along N. Main Street would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of between 27 and 30 to meet the interior noise standards. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that the appropriate windows and doors are installed, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Mitigation Measure N0I-1: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: • Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non -Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well -sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and N. Main Street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-1), the Project's potential impacts relating to noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Consistent with the Original Project, the construction generated by the Modified Project would generate temporary noise and vibration that would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Also, due to the location of the proposed residential units, mitigation is required to ensure that interior noise is within City standards. With implementation mitigation identified in the EIR, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.8.) 8.4.2 Groundborne Vibrations Threshold: Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Resolution No. Page 18 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities for of the Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is included to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site. With implementation of this measure, vibration impacts at the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure N0I-2: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following requirements: • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the Project site. Instead, smaller, rubber -tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction. • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all construction. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-2), the Project's potential impacts relating to groundborne vibration and noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8- 16 through 4.8-17.) Consistent with the Original Project construction activities for of the Modified Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, like the Original Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts related to vibration would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.8.) 8.4.3 Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-22 through 4.8-24.) The City hereby makes Finding 2 that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Mitigation Measure NOI-3 has been included to minimize and/or avoid the Project's potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Resolution No. Page 19 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the Project would generate short-term periodic increases in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, noise from operation of large mobile construction equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks would be reduced; and Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is included to require installation of a temporary noise barrier that would be a minimum 11-feet high, constructed of frame - mounted materials such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets, and attached to the masonry wall along the eastern Project site boundary or temporary fence posts. In addition, due to the location of existing sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would require a 50-foot setback for use of large mobile construction equipment and require installation of a temporary noise barrier, which would reduce the temporary and intermittent increase in noise from construction to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 temporary and periodic construction noise level increases at receiver locations would be reduced to below the 10 dBA Leq temporary noise level increase threshold. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to periodic temporary increases in noise would be less than significant. To ensure that the Project's potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels are mitigated to a less than significant level, in addition to Mitigation Measure NOI-2, discussed above, the following mitigation measure has been identified: Mitigation Measure N0I-3: The Project plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum I I -foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the Project site eastern boundary for the duration of Project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: • The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. • The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; • The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above (MM-NOI-2 and MM-NOI-3), the Project's potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) The Modified Project would involve the same types of construction equipment that would be operated in similar locations as the Original Project. However, the building setback along the eastern side of the project site would be 50 feet greater. Thus, construction of building structures would be farther from the residences located to the east of the Project site. However, consistent with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would be required to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site and install a temporary noise barrier to reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts Resolution No. Page 20 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR related to temporary construction noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EK Clarifications to the Final FIR, Section 3.8.) 8.5 Tribal Cultural Resources 8.5.1 Impact on Significant Tribal Cultural Resource Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths in various portions of the Project site. The Project involves excavation and no substantial evidence exists that tribal cultural resources are present in the Project site. However, during the SB 18/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to unknown tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-I has been included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered at the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-I: Inadvertent Discoveries. The Project's grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a "resource" the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal Resolution No. Page 21 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (Mitigation Measure TCR-1), the Project's potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEK pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve excavation and disturbance of onsite soils and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. With Mitigation Measure TCR-I no new or greater impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final FIR, Section 3.12.) 9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the FIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an FIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City hereby finds consistent with Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR and the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR) that the Project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas: 9.1 Aesthetics 9.1.1 Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9 through 4.1-16.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. (DEIR, p. 4.1-3, 4.1-9.) Moreover, as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics of the DEIR, implementation of the Project would change the character of the site to more closely align with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element designation as a Major City Entry and the Urban Design Element identification of the site as within the Main Street Concourse node. Additionally, it would align with the Scenic Corridors Element designation of Santiago Creek as an Inter -City Corridor. Hence, the Project would result in a substantial change, but this change would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista, and impacts related to a scenic vista would be less than significant. This conclusion also Resolution No. Page 22 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.1.2 Scenic Resources within State Scenic Highways Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and/or local scenic road? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) Facts in Support of Finding: There are no officially designated state highways or County -designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.1.3 Light and Glare Threshold: Would the proposed Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: All outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 8-210 and Section 41- 611.1 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and relate to intensity of security lighting. (Initial Study, p. 15.) Moreover, the Project would be required to comply with the City's lighting regulations and such compliance would be verified during the permitting process. The lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 9.2.1 Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Project result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural land use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed for urban uses and located in an area that is completely developed for urban uses. The Project site and vicinity are void of agricultural uses and the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use because no important farmland exists within the Project site and the site is designated as Urban and Built -Up land. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.2 Agricultural Zoning Resolution No. Page 23 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of agricultural uses. No agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the Project area and no parcels within the Project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The Project site also does not contain any lands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts, either active or in nonrenewal. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.3 Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) because no forest land or timberland exists within the Project site and the Project site is zoned for Professional (P) uses. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.4 Loss of Forest Land Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of forestland or timberland. (Initial Study, p. IS.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.5 Conversion Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion forest land to non -forest use because there is no existing farmland or forest land within or adjacent to the Project site. No other changes to the existing environment would occur from Resolution No. Page 24 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR implementation of the Project that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use of forest land to non -forest use. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.3 Air Quality 9.3.1 Applicable Air Quality Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the DEIR, Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Here, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is the applicable air quality plan for the Project, because the Project is consistent with SCAG's population, housing, and employment forecasts. Notably, the 496 new multi -family units resulting from the Project would constitute a 0.6 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 2 percent increase in the number of the multi -family residential units (5+ units) within the City. The Project's multi -family units would be within the SCAG projected growth. The housing added by the Project would also help to meet housing demands from projected employment growth in the City while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-15.) Moreover, the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas are jobs -rich. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040, as shown in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR. The balance of jobs and housing and the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure implemented by the Project would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as employees could easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas. Thus, the Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Further still, as discussed in the DEIR, the Project would not exceed any air quality standards. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.3.2 Air Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the maximum daily construction and operational emissions would not exceed any of SCAQMD's daily Resolution No. Page 25 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR significance thresholds. Thus, the construction and operation of the Project would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi -family residential units. However, the same construction mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.2.) 9.3.3 Cumulative Increase of Criteria Pollutant Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) SCAQMD's cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD's daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi -family residential units. However, the same construction mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.2.) 9.3.4 Objectionable Odors Threshold: Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Resolution No. Page 26 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 22.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which seeks to prevent odor nuisances (Initial Study, p. 22.) Moreover, odors resulting from the temporary construction of the Project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people due to the fact that construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Additionally, the Project would only involve residential uses, which are not land uses that are typically associated with the generation of objectionable odors such as large commercial or industrial uses. (Initial Study, p. 22.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4 Biological Resources 9.4.1 Candidate, Non -listed Sensitive, or Special -Status Animal and Plant Species Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the Project site and adjacent Santiago Park areas consist of developed or ornamentally landscaped areas that do not contain native habitat, special -status habitat, or special -status plants and none are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. As described by the DEIR, the site could be used by one special -status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms. However, its typical habitat involves conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral, which do not occur on the Project site, within Santiago Park, or in the adjacent areas. Therefore, potential impacts to the western mastiff bat from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. No other candidate, sensitive, or special status species have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.2 Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and adjacent areas do not contain native habitat or special - status habitat, including riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to these types of biological resources. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Resolution No. Page 27 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.4.3 Wetlands Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: No impact. (DEK p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24.) Facts in Support of Finding: Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project area is developed and does not contain natural wetlands. While Santiago Creek is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the Project site, the creek area is separated from the Project site by a roadway within Santiago Park, and the Project would not extend into the park area. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. (Initial Study, p. 24.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.4 Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Trees in the public right-of-way in Santa Ana are protected under Chapter 33, Article VII of the Municipal Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in public locations in Santa Ana. The Project would not remove any existing healthy street trees, and the additional street trees installed by the Project would be planted in compliance with the Municipal Code regulations. Moreover, the existing ornamental trees on the Project site are on private property and are not subject to the Municipal Code regulation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.5 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 25) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any lands that are subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5 Cultural Resources Resolution No. Page 28 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.5.1 Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, the Project would not impact any historic resources. The DEIR describes the viewsheds of the properties listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties near the Project site as already significantly affected by urban and modern structures that are taller than the Project's tallest structure, the proposed 8-level above ground parking structure. As a result, the setting has changed and no longer provides an aesthetic sense of a particular period of history. The Historic Review, referenced in the DEIR, also describes that tall trees throughout Park Santiago screen views toward the Project site, and that many of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties in Park Santiago are not within the viewshed of the Project site. Overall, as detailed in the Historic Review referenced in the DEIR, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, and the existing viewsheds, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by construction of the proposed Project. Accordingly, a reduction in the historic significance of the properties would not occur from implementation of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Due to the reduced height and scale of the Modified Project, the existing built environment, and location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by implementation of the Modified Project. Thus, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in a reduction in the historic significance of properties. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.4.) 9.5.2 Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been disturbed various times for different uses and developments. This includes excavation to depths for installation and removal of the previous gas station tanks, and septic tanks, and utility lines from previous developments in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the Property Condition Report referenced in the Initial Study describes that the foundation of the existing building in the northern portion of the site is developed on a 4-inch thick concrete slab on top of 24-inch diameter, 20-36-foot-deep piles. Thus, previous excavation in the area of the existing building reaches 20-36 feet deep, and excavation in other areas of the site were deep enough to provide for utilities, septic tanks, and gasoline tanks. Also, as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the site (referenced in the Initial Study), up to 5.5 feet of fill soils were observed in soil borings. Due Resolution No. Page 29 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological resources to be on site is low. hi addition, the Project is anticipated to involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5.3 Paleontological Resources or Geologic Feature Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: Soils beneath the subject site are mapped as Quaternary Alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. As described above, the Project site has been extensively disturbed to various depths across the site, and the Project will involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27). In addition, the Project site is developed with a building, parking areas, and landscaping, and no unique geologic feature exists on the Project site. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5.4 Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been extensively disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. However, in the unanticipated event that human remains are found during Project construction activities, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will ensure that human remains will be treated with dignity and as specified by law, which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner's office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Ultimately, compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations will ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6 Geology and Soils Resolution No. Page 30 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.6.1.1 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death — Earthquake Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 29-30) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would have no impact related to the exposure of people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones or other faults mapped on or adjacent to the Project site. The closest major active faults are the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is 10 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Newport -Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located 10 miles to the southwest. Thus, the Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or any other known fault. (Initial Study, pp. 29-30) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.2 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death — Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 30) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the seismically active region of Southern California. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. As discussed above, the closest active faults are the Elsinore Fault and the Newport -Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault Zone that are both located approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Movement along these faults, or other regional faults, could result in seismic ground shaking on the Project site. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, which regulates all building and construction Projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Because the Project must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City's plan check and permitting process, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.3 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death — Seismic -Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Resolution No. Page 31 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 30-31) Facts in Support of Finding: Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soil layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires "mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Orange Quadrangle map shows the Project site is within a liquefaction zone. However, exploratory borings at the Project site identified groundwater at approximately 110 feet below the ground surface, and borings on the Project site did not encounter groundwater to the maximum depth of 85 feet that was explored. Likewise, the groundwater wells that are located near the Project site identify groundwater levels at 110 feet below the ground surface and 143 feet below the ground surface. In addition, borings on the Project site in 2017 identified that soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which are not the uniform fine-grained sand that typically liquefies. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site conducted liquefaction analysis and determined that thin layers of onsite soils have the potential for liquefaction; however, these soils are confined by less permeable soils that would prevent the manifestation of liquefaction. Thus, because the groundwater level is far below 50 feet below the ground surface and soils are not uniformly graded fine-grained, the potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure to occur on the Project site is low. In addition, as described above, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code, as detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site, which would be verified through the City's permitting process. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground failure. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.4 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death — Landslides Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 31) Facts in Support of Finding: Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an earthquake -induced landslide area. (Initial Study, p. 31.) In addition, the Project site is located in a flat developed urban area Resolution No. Page 32 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR that does not contain or is adjacent to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes. Furthermore, as stated in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site, the Project site is not at risk for earthquake induced landslides. For the foregoing reasons, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 31.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.2 Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. However, small areas of landscaping exist within the parking area, along the site boundary, and adjacent to the existing building. The Project would redevelop the site for multi -family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. The new paved areas and landscaping from the Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP requires construction sites to implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation (DAMP Section 8.0). Additionally, the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required to be consistent with the County DAMP, address site -specific conditions related to sources of sediment, and implement erosion control and sediment control Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate sediment during construction. The Project is required to adhere to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit; this will ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would constitute a less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.3 Soil Stability Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain unstable soils or unstable geologic units. As discussed above, the Project site is located in a flat, developed urban area that does not contain, and is not adjacent to, large slopes; moreover, the Project would not generate large slopes. Accordingly, impacts related to landslides would not occur as a result of the Project. Also, as discussed above, the depth to groundwater and the types of soils onsite result in a low potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure. In addition, as further discussed above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas and must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the Resolution No. Page 33 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR City's Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to unstable soil or geologic units. In addition, the Project is not located on a geological unit or soil that would become unstable as a result of subsidence. Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the groundwater levels within a groundwater basin. Subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in a basin is lowered. Because the Project does not involve groundwater pumping, impacts related to subsidence will not occur as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.4 Soil Expansion Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 32-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes. As described above, the Project site soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which have a low expansion potential. (Initial Study, p. 32.) In addition, as noted above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. Thus, the Project's impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 33.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.5 Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system, and the Project would also connect to existing sewers and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not occur from implementation of the Project. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Resolution No. Page 34 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not generate significant amounts of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. As further detailed in the DEIR, construction and operation of the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that are below the SCAQMD's threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) In particular, as detailed in the DEIR, the Project's total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 4.30 metric tons per year per service population, which would be less than the SCAQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.80 metric tons per year per service population. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi -family residential units. However, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EK Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.5.) 9.7.2 Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Project is consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, SB 375, and the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan. Moreover, the Project would comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions, including the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code. In complying with these measures and standards (including Title 24 standards relating to insulation, use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air condition equipment, solar -reflective roofing materials, energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems, reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water, among other things), the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, Project Design Feature PDF-2 would provide a minimum of 25 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles. For these reasons, and as further detailed in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the determinations of the EK the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi -family residential units. However, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in fewer stationary source and Resolution No. Page 35 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR vehicular related GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final FIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.5.) 9.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 9.8.1 Hazardous Materials Sites Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: Operation of the Project includes activities related to the multi -family residential uses of the Project, which involve use of hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities within the Project area. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that include Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 261.4) would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 36.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.2 Hazards within One -Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: The closest existing school to the Project site is the Hoover Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.5 miles away from the Project site at 408 East Santa Clara Avenue. Thus, the Project site is not within one -quarter mile of a school and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.3 Site Location Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Resolution No. Page 36 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Project site nor any adjacent properties are included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.4 Public Airports Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. (Initial Study, p. 37.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.5 Private Airstrips Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in safety hazards related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.6 Emergency Response Plans Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street (to the south) and Edgewood Road (to the east), which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. Resolution No. Page 37 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project must comply with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. As such, for the reasons discussed herein and in the Initial Study, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 37.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.7 Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No impact. (DEIIZ, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area and is not an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 9.9.1 Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 40.) Facts in Support of Finding: Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all new development and significant redevelopment within the City shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Accordingly, both construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required to be implemented as part of permitting of the Project. Adherence to a City -approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated with construction and operational activities would be minimized to a level of less than significance. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 40-41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Resolution No. Page 38 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.9.2 Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project site does not currently provide for groundwater recharge. Moreover, the Project will not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces, and thus groundwater recharge would not be affected. Furthermore, groundwater within the Project region is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). To ensure the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD monitors water levels and recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Continued management of the groundwater basin by OCWD will ensure that substantial depletion of groundwater supplies would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 41.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.3 Drainage Pattern Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body, and will not alter the course of any such body of water in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation. The closest body of water is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park; Santiago Park would not be disturbed by the Project. Moreover, the Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern onsite. The Project would cap the existing drain to the creek and provide infiltration basins in the northern portion of the Project area. The remainder of the site would have the same type of onsite drainage that currently exists. The Project thus would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area. Moreover, as to construction activities that would involve excavation and grading of soils, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the DAMP, which requires construction sites implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, the Statewide NPDES Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a SWPP that is required to be consistent with the DAMP and implement erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate erosion during construction. Adherence to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would be minimized. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) Resolution No. Page 39 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.4 Flooding Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 42.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body. The closest water body is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park, and would not be disturbed by the Project. The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system to provide infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area, or substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in flooding. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.5 Water Runoff Threshold: Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 42-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is largely impervious, and redevelopment of the site would not substantially increase impervious areas, such that an increase in runoff would occur. In addition, the Project would redevelop the existing onsite storm water drainage system, which would convey runoff from buildings and paved areas to infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter storm water prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Overall, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in an increase in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing City storm drain system. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEER and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Resolution No. Page 40 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.9.6 Degradation of Water Quality Threshold: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 40-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, the Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.7 Flood Hazard Area Zones Threshold: Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Project site and vicinity (FEMA FIRM number 06059C0163) shows that the site is shown adjacent to, but not part of, a 100-year flood zone associated with Santiago Creek (Zone AE21). The Project site is identified on the FEMA map as "Zone X" and is not depicted within a 100- of 500- year flood zone. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.8 Structures That Impede or Redirect Flows Threshold: Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and it will not place any structure within a 100-year flood hazard area. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.9 Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death as a Result of Flooding Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Resolution No. Page 41 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. As shown in the General Plan Public Safety Element, Exhibit 4, the Project site is not located within the dam inundation area. Moreover, the site is located 130-feet up -gradient from Santiago Creek, which is generally dry, unless conveying storm flows. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.10 Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Threshold: Would the Project have significant effects relating to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: A seiche—a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken by earthquake activity is not likely to impact the Project area. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site provides that no bodies of water are close enough to the Project site to result in a sieche impact. Therefore, no seiche impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A tsunami is not likely to impact the Project area since the Project area is approximately 11.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. The Project area is flat and not near any hillsides that could be susceptible to mudflow. Thus, no mudflow impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10 Land Use and Planning 9.10.1 Divide a Community Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 44.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed with a vacant two-story office building that was used by the Wells Fargo bank. The site is adjacent to the south and the east by a single-family residential community, the north by a park, and by a museum and motel to the west across N. Main Street. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the site from an office building to multi -family residential uses, which would extend the residential uses in the community. The existing residential community would not be physically divided by the Project. Rather, the Project would be located at the Resolution No. Page 42 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR edge of the residential community and would extend the community. In addition, the Project would redevelop only the Project site and would not change roadways or areas outside of the Project site. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community. (Initial Study, p. 44.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 44.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10.2 Conflict with Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Notably, the Project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high -density, infill development, improvement of the job/housing balance, and use of green building measures, such as water efficiency and Low Impact Development features. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in conflict with SCAG policies, and impacts would not occur. Regarding General Plan designations, the Project would require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC) to allow for the proposed multi -family uses. The General Plan Land Use Element states that DC designation includes the major activity areas in the City and that District Centers are to be developed with an urban character. The proposed DC designation is consistent with the existing DC land uses to the north of Santiago Park and to the southwest across the I-5 freeway. The General Plan also designates the site as the Main Street Concourse node. The proposed DC land use designation and the Project would implement the Main Street Concourse node designation by providing an architecturally cohesive development with a maximum structure height of 90 feet from the ground surface (height intensive) within a regional activity center. The General Plan identifies that the Project is within the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway (Figure 10 of the Urban Design Element) and provides that gateways are located at the City's entry points to help define boundaries and enhance the City's identity, while reinforcing a sense of place. The proposed DC land use designation, along with the proposed height, architecture, and landscaping of the development Project would provide distinctive features that reinforce the sense of place already provided by the Discovery Cube and numerous other urban structures along N. Main Street. Thus, the Project would align with the General Plan's intent for the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway. In addition, although the development under the proposed DC designation would result in a different type Resolution No. Page 43 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR and higher intensity of residential units than the adjacent LR-7 designated Park Santiago neighborhood area, the Project provides a transition through wall heights, landscaping, building plan, and an eastern setback, such that the taller multi -family structures, vehicle parking, and circulation are not sited adjacent to single -story single-family residences. Also, designating lands for multi -family residential uses would be more consistent with the adjacent single-family residential uses, than the existing office uses because high density residential land uses adjacent to low density residential land uses have more similar and consistent activities than office building uses adjacent to low density residential. Furthermore, the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would also be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. The Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed multi -family residential project. As required by the Zoning Code, the Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Furthermore, the SD zoning designation would be consistent with the existing SD zoned areas to the north beyond Santiago Park and to the west across N. Main Street. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10.3 Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (DEK p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 46.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed and located within an urban and developed area. The project site is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, impacts related to such a plan would not occur from the Project. (Initial Study, p. 46.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 46.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.11 Mineral Resources 9.11.1 Known and Locally Important Resources Threshold: Would the Project 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? Resolution No. Page 44 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 47.) Facts in Support of Finding: No active mining operations exist in the City of Santa Ana. The mapping by the California Geological Survey does not indicate that any significant mineral deposits are present within the City. The Project area is developed with urban office uses and has no history of mining. Implementation of the Project would not cause the loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region or state. Moreover, the Project site and its surrounding vicinity is not in or near a mining site identified by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. (Initial Study, p. 47.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 47.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.0 Noise 9.12.1 Long Term Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) Facts in Support of Finding: While the Project's operation would generate some traffic -related noise, such noise would not constitute a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Pursuant to the Noise Impact Analysis (Exhibit H to the DEIR), the Project would generate an increase of less than one dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the relevant threshold. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.2 Public Airports Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the airport. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) Resolution No. Page 45 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.3 Private Airstrips Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. (DEK p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 50.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 50.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13 Population and Housing 9.13.1 Population Growth Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEK the Project would not induce substantial population growth. SCAG anticipates a population increase of 8.4 percent by 2040 or an average annual increase of 0.4 percent throughout the County. The anticipated population that would result from the Project would be 0.28 percent of the City's population, and thus, within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units would increase 6.3 percent or an average annual increase of 0.3 percent through 2040. Thus, the 496 new multi- family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the development and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth. Thus, impacts related to growth would be less than significant. (DEK p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13.2 Displacement of Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Resolution No. Page 46 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently developed for office uses and is void of any existing residential development. As such, the Project would not displace any existing housing and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13.3 Displacement of Persons Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is currently developed for office uses and does not include any residential uses. The Project would replace the existing office building with multi -family residential uses. The Project would not displace any residents and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Moreover, the Project's portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Proj ect's contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Furthermore, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. The cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs -housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14 Public Services As described in Section 4.10, Public Services, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered service facilities. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.1 Fire Protection Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order Resolution No. Page 47 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is within 2.5 miles of 4 existing fire stations and the Project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or expand an existing station. In addition, Chapter 8-46 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a fire facilities fee be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of buildings exceeding 2 stories in height, such as the Project. The purpose of the fire facilities fee is to improve fire stations in the City and provide revenue for equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height. The Project would be required to provide funding to assist in improvement of existing fire facilities and provision of needed equipment. Implementation of the Project would not require new or physically altered fire department facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.2 Police Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services but would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. The residential population of the Project would be approximately 0.27 percent of the City's population and based on the Police Department's 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the Project would require less than one additional officer. In addition, the Police Department headquarters are 2.5 miles from the Project and within response distance. Furthermore, typical police operations within the Department's Northeast District deploys coverage to be able to respond to calls from services throughout the area. The addition of one officer on patrol would not require the construction or expansion of the City's existing policing facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.3 Education Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered Resolution No. Page 48 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 54.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, the Project is required to pay fees for the provision of school services pursuant to state law AB 2926. This fee would contribute to a fund that would pay for new or expanded buildings, faculty, or equipment. Under state law, payment of school impact fees constitutes mitigation for school facility impacts of projects and such payments are deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. (Initial Study, p. 54.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 54.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.4 Parks Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes 34,300 square feet of onsite exterior open space and recreation facilities that includes 5 recreation courtyard areas that total 22,900 square feet and an 11,400-square foot amenity deck on the roof of the parking structure. hi addition, interior recreation facilities include a 5,397-square foot fitness center and a 1,566 square foot wellness pavilion. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the park and recreation needs of Project residents. The new residential population that would be generated from the Project is also anticipated to utilize existing off -site park and recreation facilities. There is currently 93.8 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. Based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents at full capacity of the Project, the Project is not anticipated to require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Resolution No. Page 49 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.14.5 Existing Recreational Facilities Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would provide onsite open space and recreational facilities for residents, which is anticipated to reduce the Project's impact on off -site recreational facilities. Moreover, based on the existing amount of park and recreational facilities in the Project site's vicinity, the recreational facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the anticipated number of residents at the Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.6 New Recreational Facilities Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project includes recreational facilities that would be constructed and operated as part of the proposed Project. In addition, access Option B includes repaving the Walkie Way entrance to Santiago Park and the addition of landscaping that includes trees and ground cover in the park and Project site entrance. The impacts of development of the recreational amenities and access options are considered part of the impacts of the Project as a while and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the DEIR. Moreover, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEM, p. 4.10-14,) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.7 Other Public Facilities Resolution No. Page 50 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, other public facilities include libraries. The City of Santa Ana Public Library includes two branches within 5 miles of the site. Library service needs are changing with increasing resources being available online and the availability of high-speed internet services and the new residences on the Project site do not necessarily result in an incremental need for library facilities. A majority of the residential units would be equipped with internet access, which provides access to many of the same resources provided by the library and would limit the increased need for library services and resources. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.15 Transportation and Traffic 9.15.1 Conflict with Applicable Circulation Plan or with Applicable Congestion Management Program Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. Based on the thresholds identified in these plans, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, as further explained in the DEIR. Notably, the vehicular trips that would be generated by the Project would not cause an exceedance of any traffic level of service threshold at any intersection or roadway segment. (DEM, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) Resolution No. Page 51 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR To evaluate the potential traffic impacts related to the Modified Project, a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Attachment B to the Clarifications to the Final FIR) was prepared and peer reviewed by a City -selected independent traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineering staff. The Supplemental Traffic hnpact Analysis evaluates operation of 278 multi -family units, which is 22 more units than the Modified Project that consists of 256, and therefore, provides an overstated and conservative analysis of potential impacts. The analysis determined that the Modified Project would develop 48 percent fewer residential units than the Original Project, which would result in 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Thus, no new impacts related to the volume of vehicular trips would occur from the Modified Project. Additionally, the Modified Project would implement changes to the Main Street and Walkie Way intersection geometries that would result in less than significant impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, and vehicle queues; which is consistent with the impacts of the Original Project as detailed in the FIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final FIR, Section 3.11.) 9.15.2 Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any uses that would affect air traffic patterns or air traffic levels. No portion of the Project would change air traffic patterns by extending into airspace. The closest operating airport is over 6 miles south of the Project site. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.3 Design Feature Hazards Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in hazards related to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project driveways include direct access to the parking structure, and access from N. Main Street would be restricted to right -turn ingress/right-turn egress to provide for safe and effective circulation. As noted in the Traffic hnpact Analysis referenced in the DEIR, motorists entering and exiting the Project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Moreover, and as noted by the Traffic hnpact Analysis, the neighborhood intersections and roadway have adequate capacity to support the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Resolution No. Page 52 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR To evaluate the potential traffic impacts related to the Modified Project, a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Attachment B to the Clarifications to the Final FIR) was prepared and peer reviewed by a City -selected independent traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineering staff. The Supplemental Traffic hnpact Analysis evaluates operation of 278 multi -family units, which is 22 more units than the Modified Project that consists of 256, and therefore, provides an overstated and conservative analysis of potential impacts. The analysis determined that the Modified Project would develop 48 percent fewer residential units than the Original Project, which would result in 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Thus, no new impacts related to the volume of vehicular trips would occur from the Modified Project. Additionally, the Modified Project would implement changes to the Main Street and Walkie Way intersection geometries that would result in less than significant impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, and vehicle queues; which is consistent with the impacts of the Original Project as detailed in the FIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated FIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final FIR, Section 3.11.) 9.15.2 Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any uses that would affect air traffic patterns or air traffic levels. No portion of the Project would change air traffic patterns by extending into airspace. The closest operating airport is over 6 miles south of the Project site. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.3 Design Feature Hazards Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in hazards related to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project driveways include direct access to the parking structure, and access from N. Main Street would be restricted to right -turn ingress/right-turn egress to provide for safe and effective circulation. As noted in the Traffic hnpact Analysis referenced in the DEIR, motorists entering and exiting the Project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Moreover, and as noted by the Traffic hnpact Analysis, the neighborhood intersections and roadway have adequate capacity to support the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Resolution No. Page 52 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.4 Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEK p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes for emergency access are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project is required to design and construct internal access to conform to OCFA standards to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.5 Alternative Transportation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, pedestrian or other alternative transportation systems. Notably, the Project would not conflict with existing bus routes or sidewalks, and it would implement new onsite sidewalks to connect to offsite sidewalks and onsite bicycle facilities. (Initial Study, p. 59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 59.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.1 Utilities and Service Systems 9.16.1 Wastewater Treatment Requirements Threshold: Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Resolution No. Page 53 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) Facts in Support of Finding: The multi -family residential land uses proposed by the Project are not anticipated to discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the RWQCB. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.2 New Infrastructure and Adequate Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR, the Project would receive water supplies through the existing 16-inch water lines located within the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road rights -of -way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the Project; no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Redevelopment of the existing onsite water distribution lines would only serve the Project and would not provide water to any off -site areas. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) 9.16.3 Storm Water Drainage Requirements Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 64.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure, and small areas of landscaping surround the development. The Project would redevelop the site for multi -family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. hi addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system that would accommodate runoff with infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins Resolution No. Page 54 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in the need for new or expanded offsite drainage facilities. (Initial Study, p. 64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 64.)This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.4 Water Supply Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) Facts in Support of Finding: The City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates a supply and demand increase of 8.2 percent (3,028 acre feet per year) relating to water. The Project would result in an increase in demand for water supplies that is between just 2.7 and 4.2 percent of the UWMP's anticipated increase. Accordingly, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.5 Wastewater Treatment Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project, that ithas adequate capacityto serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) Facts in Support of Finding: Based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City's Design Criteria wastewater generation rates, the Sewer Study identified that the existing sewer lines that serve the Project site would be able to adequately handle the additional wastewater flows from the Project. Additionally, the existing wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the Project. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the Project's demand in addition to existing service commitments. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.6 Solid Waste Facilities Threshold: Would the Project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to Resolution No. Page 55 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 65.) Facts in Support of Finding: The existing landfills that serve the project region have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste needs. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16 Energy Resources As discussed in Section 4.14, Energy, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in an increase in overall or per capita energy consumption, or in a wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, or require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, or conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards. The Project would be developed pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Part 11 [CALGreen Code]), which would provide for sustainable construction and operational practices, including energy efficiency. (DEK pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City's Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (11VAC); solar -reflective roofing materials; energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. In addition, the Project would represent an urban infill development because it would occur on a currently developed site, and would be located near existing off -site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance related to a reduction of vehicle trip distances that would achieve a reduction in associated transportation -related fuel demand. Also, the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.17 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts Resolution No. Page 56 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the FIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. As discussed throughout Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the DEIR's cumulative evaluation focuses on whether the impacts of the Project are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As described, different types of cumulative impacts occur for different environmental resources that affect different geographic areas. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis, where cumulative impacts occur over a large area, is different from the geographic scope considered for cumulative analysis of aesthetic resources, for which cumulative impacts are limited to specific viewsheds. Thus, in assessing aesthetic resources impacts, only development within and immediately adjacent to the Project area that would contribute to a cumulative visual effect is analyzed, whereas cumulative traffic impacts are based upon all development within the traffic study area of roadways and intersections. Therefore, the DEIR describes the cumulative geographic scope, and the potential cumulative impacts included in the geographic scope. As detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the cumulative evaluation in the DEIR determined that the cumulatively considerable impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant with implementation of the PDFs and mitigation measures that would reduce the potential of project level impacts to become cumulatively significant. Overall, cumulative impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-7 through 4.14-8.) Specifically, the City hereby finds as follows: 9.17.1 Aesthetics The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is visible from the site because it is currently developed with an 1I- story office building. This related project involves development of multi -family residences on the site, which would be similar to the character to the proposed Project. The two projects would provide similar multi -family development and would not combine to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. The other cumulative projects are similar to the proposed Project, providing multi -family residential uses that would be consistent with the existing urban, developed character of the viewshed area. As a result, cumulative impacts related to scenic views and visual character and site quality would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would occur when development projects are sufficiently close that shadows from individual buildings combine to create areas of consecutive shading of shadow - sensitive areas. The DEIR details that shadows of the Project do not combine with shadows of other projects to create consecutive shading of any shadow -sensitive areas. Thus, the shading from the Project would not cumulatively combine with other projects, and cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would be less than cumulatively significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative aesthetic effects would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-26 through 4.1-27.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.2 Air Quality Resolution No. Page 57 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR SCAQMD's cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD's daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s). As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non -attainment would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. For these reasons, also discussed previously in Section 9.3.3 of these Findings, and in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects on air quality would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.3 Biological Resources The Project site is developed and located within an urban area of the City. The site provides limited areas for natural habitat and wildlife species; but does include mature trees that could be used by birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for nesting. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would provide for nesting bird surveys that would reduce the potential of the Proposed Project to impact nesting migratory birds or raptors, which would also avoid the potential of the Project to contribute to cumulative effects. As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to all other candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, therefore with Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.4 Cultural Resources As detailed in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties of properties in Park Santiago, and the existing viewsheds, impacts related to the setting and feeling aspects of integrity of historic properties would not be reduced by implementation of the proposed Project; and the Project would not materially alter any physical characteristics of a historic resource that convey its historical significance. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects throughout the region, and a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.5 Geology, Soils and Seismicity Geologic and soils related impacts occur in a local or site -specific context, such as immediately adjacent cumulative development. Thus, the scope of analysis for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils encompasses the Project vicinity. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. The Project would be required Resolution No. Page 58 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to comply with CBC building codes, which reduces impacts to a less than significant level. All other projects are also subject to the same CBC building codes to reduce potential effects related to seismic events. As a result, cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project is not located on a site with potential for significant effects related to geology, soils, or seismicity. (Initial Study, pp. 29-33.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects on geology, soils, and seismicity, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions All GHG emissions are assessed in a cumulative context because no single project can cause a discernible change to climate. AB 32 recognizes the significance of the statewide cumulative impact of GHG emissions from sources throughout the state and sets a performance standard for mitigation of that cumulative impact. Therefore, analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the FIR effectively constitutes an analysis of a project's contribution to the significant cumulative impact of GHG emissions. As described in DEIR Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project would be lower than the AQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects on greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-13.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site -specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. Due to this distance, the potential from hazards to cumulatively increase is limited. In addition, compliance with the relevant federal, state, and local regulations during the construction and operation of related projects would ensure that cumulative impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the Project would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment; and therefore, would not result in a cumulative contribution to a hazardous materials impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. In addition, the nearby projects provide residential and commercial uses, that would use the same type of limited hazardous materials as the proposed Project. With regular use and storage of these commonly used household products, such as would occur on the Project site, cumulative impacts would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 through 4.6-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Resolution No. Page 59 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR The Initial Study (DEIR Appendix A) details that Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requires all new development and significant redevelopment within the City be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including but not limited to the development project guidance; and any conditions and requirements established by City agencies related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the Project site, which are verified prior to the issuance by the City of a grading permit or building permit. The DAMP requires implementation of site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, because the proposed Project is a priority project as it would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site, it would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features and BMPs to limit the potential for pollutants to enter surface water, such as storm water runoff. With implementation of these requirements, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. In addition, all of the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to these State and County regulations, which would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to hydrology and water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 39-44.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects relating to hydrology and water quality, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects, and cumulative effects would be less than cumulatively considerable. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.9 Land Use and Planning A large portion of the cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project consist of multi -family residential development. In addition, the cumulative projects include mixed -uses, retail commercial, hotel, and services. These related projects are similar, consistent, and complementary to the proposed SD zone and multi -family residential development. DEIR Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, describes that the Project would not result in conflicts with existing land use or zoning designations and would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project, which has the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including applicable regulations, policies, and standards of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Thus, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to such an impact that could occur from related projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-34.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.10 Noise Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed Project. The nearest related project to the Project site is the 2700 North Main Street residential development project is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is in the site plan review stage of development approval. Thus, it is likely that these projects would not be constructed simultaneously. hi addition, should construction of the projects overlap, the distance between the sites and the numerous intervening structures located between Resolution No. Page 60 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR the sites that would serve to reduce construction -related noise levels, a substantial increase in combined construction noise levels would not occur. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Cumulative construction could also result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As described above, the nearest related project to the proposed Project is 0.2 miles north of the project site. Due to this distance, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the proposed Project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptor should construction of this related project occur at the same time as the proposed Project. Only receptors located in the immediate vicinity of each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Additionally, cumulative traffic -generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the Project opening year (2020) and the year 2040 cumulative base traffic volumes on the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.3 dBA CNEL, which is lower than 5 dBA, cumulative impact threshold for traffic noise. For the reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to noise would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-24 through 4.8-25.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.11 Population and Housing The Project's portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Project's contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Additionally, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. Furthermore, the cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs -housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons that are detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to population and housing would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-10.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.12 Public Services and Recreation Fire Protection Fire protection service is provided by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) staffed Fire Stations that are owned by the City of Santa Ana. There are several proposed projects within Santa Ana in the Project vicinity that would combine to generate additional demands for OCFA services. Like the proposed Project, the related projects would be reviewed by City and OCFA staff prior to permit approval and would be Resolution No. Page 61 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR required to implement fire protection design features per California building and fire code regulations that would reduce potential fire hazards. Cumulative increased demands for services would also be offset by the City of Santa Ana fire facilities fee that is required for each development project. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the Project would not result in cumulative traffic impacts in both years 2020 and 2040. The roadway segments and intersections near the Project site and Fire Stations 70 and 71 would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, the vehicular trips generated by operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in emergency response times that could cumulatively combine with other development projects in the City, and impacts related to emergency response times from Fire Stations 70 and 71 would be less than cumulatively considerable. Because 4 of the City's 10 existing fire stations exist within 2.5 miles of the Project site, and related projects would be subject to the same impact fees that provide funding for additional equipment and staffing, and fire safe construction requirements, impacts related to fire services from the proposed Project would not combine with other related projects to result in a cumulative impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire service facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Police Services The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services and based on the Police Department's 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the proposed Project would require one additional officer for the Department's Northeast District that serves all areas of the City north of First Street and East of Flower Street. In addition, the DEIR estimates that the cumulative projects would require an additional 3 officers to maintain the City's existing officers to population ratio. The addition of less than 1 officer from the proposed Project and 2 officers from the other projects within the Police Department's Northeast District would not require the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to police services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEK pp. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Parks and Recreation The proposed Project would provide onsite recreational facilities for residents that would meet many recreation and park needs of Project residents. In addition, the Project would be required to pay park fees to offset usage of existing park and recreation facilities. The cumulative projects within the City of Santa Ana would also be required to provide park and recreational facilities and/or pay in -lieu fees as required by each city, which are implemented to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities, and as a result reduce cumulative effects of each project. Thus, because the proposed Project would provide the open space and recreation facilities and would provide Resolution No. Page 62 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR payment of the required park fees, the Project's impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to park and recreation facilities would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to parks and recreation would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-14.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.13 Transportation and Traffic As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would not result in impacts in the cumulative 2020 and 2040 conditions pursuant to the Caltrans, City of Santa Ana, and City or Orange thresholds and methodology. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-10 and 4.11-11.) As detailed in DEIR Tables 4.11-9 through 4.11-36, the proposed Project would not conflict with or result in an exceedance of a threshold by any of the following: the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis details that the capacities of the Park Santiago neighborhood intersections and roadways are substantially higher than the daily trip generation of the proposed Project. As such, cumulative impacts related to neighborhood traffic would be less than cumulatively significant. Also, the DEIR details that Project access locations and circulation around the Project site would be adequate, and cumulative impacts related to queuing would be less than cumulatively considerable. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to transportation and traffic would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.14 Utilities and Service Systems Water The Project would install new water lines to serve the proposed buildings and connect to the existing system that is adjacent to the Project site. The water system has been designed the proposed Project and would be served by existing infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the requirement for new or expanded off -site water infrastructure that could combine with other water infrastructure needs to result in an environmental impact. Thus, potential cumulative impacts from off -site water system expansions would not occur from the proposed Project. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the Project describes that the 2015 MWD UWMP details the ability to meet the demands of its member agencies, including the City of Santa Ana, through 2040. In addition, the City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP confirmed the ability of the local supplies and the OC Basin to meet the growing demands of the City in multiple climate scenarios. Also, as described previously the increased water demand from the proposed Project would be between 2.7 and 4.3 percent of the 2015 UWMP anticipated increase. Thus, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements, and cumulative water supply needs would be able to be met as detailed by the MWD and City's UWMPs. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in water supply demands that would require new or expanded entitlements. Resolution No. Page 63 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to water supplies would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-8.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Wastewater DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, the OCSD reclamation facilities have an average flow of 184 mgd and a treatment capacity of 462 mgd (OCSD, 2017). Due to this volume of excess capacity that is designed by OCSD to accommodate future regional growth, the increase in wastewater flow from the proposed Project that would require 0.04 percent of this remaining capacity would not significantly impact the OCSD reclamation facilities. As a result, impacts related to cumulative projects wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to wastewater treatment and conveyance would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-12.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Drainage and Water Quality All projects in the watershed are required to implement measures to comply with the LID, MS4 Permit, DAMP requirements for implementation of SWPPPs and WQMPs. These requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to water quality. Implementation of the proposed Project would include compliance with all required laws, permits, and plans, through implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP that would be approved by the City prior to construction and operational permits and have been designed to reduce impacts associated with drainage and water quality. The proposed Project would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces due to the increase in landscape and open space areas. Additionally, the DAMP required runoff volume would be filtered through the detention and drywell systems prior to discharge off -site to manage stormwater drainage and protect water quality. The detention and drywell treatment systems have high removal effectiveness for all storm water pollutants of concern. Thus, the runoff volume that would result from the proposed Project would not increase, and the proposed treatment systems would remove pollutants from onsite runoff. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate volumes of stormwater flows or polluted runoff that could combine with other projects to be cumulatively considerable. As a result, cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project's cumulative effects relating to drainage and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-19.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND ENERGY USE Resolution No. Page 64 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs reveal the significant environmental changes that would occur as a result of a proposed Project. CEQA also requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the Project. The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with office uses would be committed to multi -family residential uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include: o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (see Section 4.1 of the DEIR, Aesthetics). o Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.11 of the DEIR, Transportation and Traffic). o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (see Section 4.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, and the like (see Section 4.14 of the DEIR, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from operation of the Project (see Section 4.8, Noise). • Construction of the Project as described in Section 3.0 of the DEIR, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. In regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, the Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energy -generating and conserving project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, the Project includes project design features that result in additional energy - efficiency. (DEIR, p. 5-4.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 11.0 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project's potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects if it requires new development or infrastructure to support it. The Project's growth effects would be considered significant if they could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. As discussed in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, the limited number of jobs generated by the Project would represent a small portion of the estimated job growth that would be within, and not exceed, SCAG's population forecast. As such, the Project would result in direct employment growth at a level that is already anticipated in regional projections; and thus, would be less than significant. The Project would not remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major Resolution No. Page 65 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area, or by expansion of public services in the Project area. The infrastructure needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the site and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth; and the Project would not create a demand for public services beyond what is already contemplated. Additionally, as described in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, SCAG projections show that the jobs — housing ratio is anticipated to increase to 1.65 by 2040; and that the Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing on the Project site, where employees can easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas, which are jobs -rich. Thus, the Project would provide additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities. In addition, the provision of housing on the Project site would not result in economic activity that would cause the need for additional off -site housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, growth inducing impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 12.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 12.1 Background Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires EMS to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An FIR 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 FIR 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 FIR 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: Resolution No. Page 66 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR (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 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. However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403.) Here, a range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project was developed to provide additional information and flexibility to the decision -makers when considering the proposed Project. (DEIR, pp. 6- 1 through 6-26.) 12.2 Project Objectives The following Project objectives support the Project's underlying purpose to develop multi -family residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City's housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high -quality housing. • Increase high -quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeway, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide residents with a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreational amenities. (DEIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) Resolution No. Page 67 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 12.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible, meet most of the project objectives, and avoid significant environmental effects that would occur from the project, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, are infeasible, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), (t)(3)). The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. Alternative Site Alternative An alternative site was considered but eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is vacant, and the site is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new high -quality multi -family housing near employment centers to promote an improved jobs/housing balance, provide housing near existing transportation, and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 496 multi -family residential units on another 5.9-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an available alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. No Project/Vacant Building Alternative An alternative where the building would remain vacant and underutilized was eliminated from further consideration. Because the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, it is not reasonable due to the need for new residential and employment space in the area or financially feasible for the existing site owner for the site to remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. Therefore, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative would be remote and infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. As described previously, alternatives that are remote, infeasible, and do not meet Project objectives, do not need to be considered. Thus, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative was rejected from further consideration. 12.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project ..." including the "No Project' alternative. The following alternatives have Resolution No. Page 68 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the access alternatives presented in the DEIR. The alternatives presented have been determined to be physically feasible and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. The Alternatives include: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build • Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative • Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative 12.5 Evaluation of Alternatives Selected for Analysis Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Description: Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the FIR is required to "discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as 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 development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition. However, as described in Section 6.4 of the DEIR, the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, and it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. In the No Project/No Build condition, it is reasonably expected that the existing 81,172 square foot office building would be re -occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the Project with re -occupation at full capacity of the existing office building. (DEK p. 6-4.) Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact that would result from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR which include measures related to aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources would not be required. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 through 6-11.) However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the arsenic contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) The site would not be redeveloped into new high -quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. Capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan would not occur, and a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities would not be implemented by this alternative. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) Resolution No. Page 69 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts and would avoid the need for mitigation to ensure impacts to various environmental resources would not occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require a General Plan amendment or zone change. However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives and the environmental benefits of the Project would not be realized. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Description: Under this alternative, described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 6-12), a 30 percent reduction in the number of residential units would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. Like the Project, 77 percent of the units would be studio or one -bedroom units, 18 percent would be 2-bedroom units, and 6 percent would be 3-bedroom units. This alternative would develop and operate 347 multi -family residential units on the 5.9-acre site, which would result in 59 dwelling units per acre, which is a 149-unit (and 25 unit per acre) reduction compared to the Project. Reducing these units from the Project would eliminate 51 units along the eastern portion of the Project site to provide a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site; and the 5th floor residential units along the eastern side would be eliminated to provide a maximum of 4-stories adjacent to the 90- foot setback. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the development would be 3-stories in height along Santiago Park and Edgewood Road, and would be 5 stories in height along N, Main Street and adjacent to the parking structure. To support the 347 multi -family residential units under this alternative 625 parking spaces (an average of 1.8 spaces per unit consistent with the Project) would be provided within a 6-level parking structure, that would have 5 levels above ground and one level underground. Like the Project, the residential units would be wrapped around the parking structure. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the Wellness Room and Community Rooms would not be developed (as they are planned to be located within the 90-foot setback) and the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30 percent. Thus, approximately 4,870 of indoor recreation facilities would be provided by this alternative. However, the 90-foot setback would create a large open space area (approximately 54,000 square feet) along the eastern side of the Project site that could be used for open space recreation. Like the Project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment from the existing land use designation of PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center (DC), and a Zone change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) designation. Environmental Effects: As further discussed in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-12 through 6-17), the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site resulting in an open space area that could be used for recreation. In addition, views of the Project site would be visually less dense and structure heights would be lower from several viewpoints. Also, the shade and shadow generated from the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than the Project and would extend into fewer off -site areas. However, the same mitigation to protect the trees to remain onsite would be necessary to ensure views of the Project site are screened, and (although less) this alternative would also result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site that is considered significant pursuant to the City's aesthetics criteria. Thus, this Alternative does not eliminate a significant and unavoidable impact. Resolution No. Page 70 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR This alternative would also require the same types of construction activities and related mitigation measures as the proposed Project. Therefore, although the Reduced Project Alternative would be lower in height, scale, and mass, generate fewer greenhouse gas and air quality emissions, require fewer services, result in less traffic trips, and create a large open space area on the eastern portion of the Project site, it would not reduce the need for mitigation or the level of impact significance compared to the Project. Finding: The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed Project; however, the alternative would not reduce significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level and would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Reduced Project Alternative. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative Description: Under this alternative described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-18 through 6- 24), the Project site would be redeveloped for new professional office uses as allowed bythe City's Zoning Code Sections 41-312 through 41-323. The Project site has a Zoning designation of P (Professional), which allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height. The building setbacks required in the P zone include a 15-foot setback from the front and side property lines, and a 50-foot rear setback when the site backs to residential areas. The maximum office building structure that could be developed under the existing zoning code requirements would be 3-stories high and 387,465 square feet (floor area ratio of 1.5), which would require 1,161 parking spaces (per the P zone requirement of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The office building would be surrounded by drought tolerant ornamental landscaping. Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and replaced to provide a new building structure that would be developed pursuant to current building requirements, such as energy efficient power systems, drought tolerant landscaping, storm water filtration, and other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. This alternative would be consistent with the existing land use designation, which is PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) and P zoning designation. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Environmental Effects: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in a lower building height than the Project, and a 10-foot larger setback from the eastern boundary of the site; but would be 4.77 times larger than the existing 81,172 square foot 2-story building, and like the Project, this alternative would substantially change the scale, height, and setbacks in comparison to existing views of the Project site, which would result in a significant impact pursuant to the City's aesthetics criteria. Furthermore, the character of the office building under this alternative would be less visually consistent with the adjacent single-family residential than the proposed multi -family residential. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) The Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in approximately 1,275 employees at full capacity and generate approximately 3,774 vehicle trips per day, which is 40 percent more daily trips than the proposed Project. As a result, impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas, traffic noise, and traffic congestion would be increased in comparison to the Project. Similarly, construction of this alternative would require the same construction related mitigation measures that are required for the Project. Overall, the Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet Resolution No. Page 71 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR a majority of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped into new high -quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance, and would not provide residents with a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. Although the Project would meet the objectives of redeveloping land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure and would implement capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan, a majority (5 out of 7) of the Project objectives would not be met. (DEIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24.) Finding: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable aesthetic impact, would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project, and would result in greater impacts to other environmental topics than the Project. In addition, the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet a majority of the Project objectives. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Existing Zoning Alternative. 12.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Project is the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and all of the potential construction impacts, reduce many of the operational impacts, and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR that are related to: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources. However, this alternative would not improve the storm water runoff quality that runs directly into Santiago Creek, not remove the contaminated soils from the site, not improve the jobs/housing balance and the related reduction in vehicle miles traveled. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(3)(1) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives is Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, which would develop 30 fewer units than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) The potential impacts from this alternative are less than the Project because the residential structure under this alternative would be lower in height, at a lower density, and be sited at least 90-feet from the eastern property line resulting in a large open space area that could be used for recreation. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact related to a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site and the alternative would not reduce the need for mitigation compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect; providing fewer multi -family housing units on the Project site that would result in a reduced improvement to the City's 3.2 percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance, and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street Concourse node designations as the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high - quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance would occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high -quality, modern residential Resolution No. Page 72 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR community with open space and various recreation amenities on the Project site. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweighed the harm. Resolution No. Page 73 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 CITY OF SANTA ANA: DP No. 2017-34 Introduction The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA responsible for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (Project). 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 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 Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: 15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations. 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. Resolution No. Page 74 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following 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, most of which do not meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the DEIR for the Project 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 its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the Project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2108I(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the Project. The specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project are as follows: 1. The Project would implement capital investment to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. 2. The Project would implement the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Major City Entry designation along N. Main Street at the Project site. 3. The Project would implement the General Plan Urban Design Element Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway designation. 4. The Project would provide consistency with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Inter - City Corridor designation along the Santiago Creek area at N. Main Street. 5. The Project would provide needed multi -family rental housing to improve the City's 3.2 percent vacancy rate and provide a variety of housing options for existing and future residents. 6. The Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio, providing a beneficial effect of providing multi- family housing in a jobs -rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment opportunities. 7. The Project would result in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions from the provision of housing near regional shopping areas and employment, and by improving the jobs -housing balance. Resolution No. Page 75 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations 8. The Project would provide additional multi -family housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. 9. The Project would redevelop an underutilized parcel to implement high -quality multi -family housing with recreation amenities, near transportation facilities and utilizing existing infrastructure capacity. 10. The Project would improve storm water filtration, such that unfiltered runoff would no longer be conveyed to Santiago Creek. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas and catch basins that would improve the existing storm water quality that conveys to the creek. 11. The Project would install additional 24- and 36-inch box trees and tree wells along the Edgewood Road and N. Main Street right-of-way, providing additional public street trees. 12. The Project would result in the creation, installation, and maintenance of a public art project with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Project, pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company ("Project Applicant'). 13. The Project would result in the Project Applicant constructing park improvements including, but not limited to, installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancements to Santiago Park pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company ("Project Applicant'). 14. The Project would result in providing benefits to the Park Santiago neighborhood for a period of 55-year (subject to annual review) including access to on -site amenities, private 24-hour roving security patrol of Santiago Park and the Park Santiago Neighborhood pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company ("Project Applicant. 15. The Project would result in the Applicant preforming the analysis, design, engineering, construction, and inspection/administration of (1) Santiago Park neighborhood improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming and traffic diversion. Improvements may be based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association and may include, but not be limited to, bulb -outs, traffic circles and medians within the neighborhood streets. (2) Street lighting enhancements within the Santiago Park Neighborhood. (3) A street light at the Santiago Park Drive / Main Street intersection. (4) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company ("Project Applicant'). Resolution No. Page 76 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR EXHIBIT C 2525 N. MAIN STREET MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction 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). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (project). The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP. 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP for the project will be active through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the project to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts on the environment. The table identifies the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes a column for the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required mitigation measure has been completed. The project includes specific Project Design Features (PDFs) that are incorporated to avoid and/or minimize potential environmental impacts. In addition, the EIR analysis describes the existing regulations that effectively avoid or reduce environmental impacts. The PDFs and the existing regulations that are implementable actions related to project construction and operation activities are included in the following MMRP table to ensure implementation and appropriate monitoring of each, in the same manner as the mitigation measures. N � dd� 0 U m c c c c c c N N N N N t0 m w w w w w w w N �_ C �_ C �_ N - C � .O � .O � .O p- OI d N N N N N N N N N N N N N C O O O O O �iO. T U U .L' U ..T. U ,T. U U ocf O_ c C O O O- C O aO Y U 'C 2 ao o = w J O C N T t0 ((JJa ((JJa N T� N y Jc OV OC - co OC y U. c o o 0 N o c 0 = c 0 c 0 0 o o. s E .o N a$ o w.m m o a t0 a o 'o •' b= cr cr o N L O N U C_ d N y O O N O NOI !0 $ � >` N LVOi N N a y 0¢ H Oj O7 !0 w L P; 0,0 l0 C T C !0 N O E O UC N O Q^ N YJ C O i N Q O 0' L O b = .+d" E O_ c N i N0, E N O O_ -O T-+ NN C i 2 E U O ¢ R N O_ U w _ (O O O ... O- y ¢ � nL+ ¢ O N L g � N M lO O w0 U " m L A i= p_ y 'S 1E c c� t E £ m w E o c oa S' c .�. m .0 �i c E o U O y y 3 E N> a� cTi CJ m c o o o y U c `m y a p o y o — d E_ O N E12 '+.. W d .'a' C U= N O ry _ OI N .� N N -O ~ 0 bzo C y o o o d N T y d N OI OCl Y d N L O_ N N .00 H N " C d aL. 0 E E E E '° ti= o o o y O a o_ Y O y£ a w u m V O E 2 N L N O y U t0 .((JJ -O O_ N 0 OI iJ y 0 C N y R a+ � � C O U m m U w C N C a E 0 U m � � � N C y C W O1 C E f 0 O C N N 6 E f�0 d N L E O C C 0 E Q R R` 3$ 0 0' L 0 y ~ y N O co d 0) _ L a N y O d Q U c y N 0 O C O Y y H U Q V c S c S N O . _O m O 67 ON ON C Fa > W. O O NU YO C C EQ ryy C aE d U -O E y E ' y R R p_ OI b .> O N 'O Q .� y y .R E_ LL o +.. C O Gi N 'O y N N �[ FLU, U 'O C O N w a 0 R y R N R -O T' y m U L L y O C C R y R E OI N C y C y R m y a c -O O Off— d C O +L,,. c O Jg O N y d y Yi O L d O U a R .� P3 C E E E 2 R R w ROLRmoE aO Rcpj . —P $R wFpN UOcQ E E NUR CO UR� R"N -cm aNOc. �E_?iC LEC L6Ry oO Lai d 0 0 O Ry "RUE ECo ayyON _CRO LNO 'yO —ytOOn R LOSR O I O N O '0 S N S E y -¢OryyypN '- W. m ydd E mN N OO Z N N N cZa N i N .a O` R y O .0 a (O O _O EO— R j .0 C `yam O_ ORy� O -O d NCO. C -O 00�. OE Nc.L.. o�� LEN R o.'S E � OI c N R_ R 0 UU. 'VOEa� 23p OO iO0o m yT o Oc Oo . 0 To oo m. 8 Jot gOc' O y a 3 � Z LR m OO O O 4 pp E 21, N C c O t -0mN c R E N N R R o 0 m o: y N A a+ E o O U m d OI 'C OI OI w {Cp a T a T C y c c d C. O C QdI C QdI CO .N y C '5 .o (TI .N '5 .o CO .N y O d OI d y lY y j9 N c y N O N y c VI O 2i V% O 0 O O to to to to N to y O O O o W U U 4. U L L U U U 0 c o c c 4 c c .0 i i c m e m y€ m m'o r a a� d m � m P p a S m o a a a c `o `oa c `o m c `o o `o c 4 y u .o c c c_ c o c o .o .o m o m a a y . c J c N y . b J OO m e OU. b O b O E a O p CJ N '� U ccp �i' y U O N O p h O p C m m m m b w E - C U ON_ Z O Z L Y 'C O C !0 0 N N O' _ �ij O C Q p_ y i �p C y N !0 N N " E aj N Z N pcp m C N >i c L N y g O C N O C C '� N N c O U E N y y c C c o c c t O !0 N N C Q Q N N E O T Y !0 w O E M N L c Q c N N a Z C m !0 a w L_ L 3 w o E �� y oa9 c 3� w .3 .�. t5 o'o y .w �N o a'� c N O O y b O U N O N M N C ~ U y O � N N Of s E c N c O 'N O- A b& O C 9 pC a0" N S .O � O +LO„ U N y y C r O O N O. p y '> a� N y 8 ¢ w c L a 6% d L ~ 2 P .� ems' E - c4 0 3 d O ai e E O E O O .L,. c O N O N m N y N tsn .0 U c T= U L O 2 O O 0 d E y L_ �- o_ o$ -s Eb ~ d "' c a g 2 m o .m 2 L C O 02 U O E n^ y m a ox $E y-y O ON N o ioZ OdY E H Oc>f P— O y � s vaso oo O` O N OI y E N cyi O 0 O M r N �� L Q � � C) N y L_ .C_ N (n s '=� E y .= M t0 f+f y MOsvl R T O Of t0 6 w C y L_ L 3 N N Z O L Q N O O �-. U E Q O O P C O. O O C N O Q L 0v o O . £ 8 No L yEacQ O O JN O O O O O U c O (7 O E 0 TO ¢ E s N O O Q a` G O C 6 O 6 T 6 -O O O c c O U O Q 1- L • N O N O: E � y � N N A a+ N N N O C E o O U m o w w m U C C E C 6 O CO .N CO .N N C CO y �Uk Qom, Qom, yo '> Qom, y(n N (n N N U) O C O O O rile. U U U - - c a N c o E m E€ aEi c r m a m o a m o o m S c a S= a c a Z a o N '� o '`0 2 o if E E 0 =O Q � O Q o- CS CS U -o U U - m tUo a d N 'c .y N 82 O O 0 F O -O C N o> O O- E o m s o_ °' a t o 4 L 4' o c' N O 4 e s o O > O N y C y !0 C S c O oC > OC H U > (n Q U .� N _ C °i of m UyU m > b ai u m o c _ = o_ 43 d O O a o = 0 w O N N > .4 m 8 o oc E= y 3 E >'. O -Z w O C y O -Q 0 O y o o� o_m L y o N 0 C Q N O U N f0 Of S N L19 > e O -OO 2.. N O N Nl o C N E fE 0 0 o C T .k a6 N E c N E2 N c '-O�p C N OI'C O T N_ N O1- aLy+ (Uj�- ,S ! 'N N .2 O Ol- -COS A e �. O U 42 Of N E N E O N E N 0 N CO e O .cc Oy_O�� 42 O O. O U M N N '4 d 0 0 O_ N E y N U L i N E t0 O s" 3 E m :° m a o E a o c +L... e z E s s 0 0 0 u o N N`m o o 2` o o m c d¢ S d s t° �- y 3 'L >i Z` d E S OI C _ -O - U f0 N t0 -O d NN y N '- 'p aj C f0 N N nT+ O D U L '� NN y .4 O N iJ d w d N= y ^2 L O p y N -O N p N O .- (n N OI .- c N U -O N N O y 4 0 O_ t0 C y p O .Pi E Ip -0 i N U +L.. C a0.. O 41 L C= N RI N-Z N N O 'i 3 TJ d O O. N O O C! c N w o p U y 0 N a m0= `° c" o E �.0 ' a A ?.mo d ycOO° 'tmc �E' O 4c QE +-O O O U N = Oe- 2 u N • N U p- O G r .L.. O_ J 'O o Z y 'NO A := X. m N .0 2 ^2 9 N N A a+ E o O U m c m m U w C_ a E'� m > G U Q a Ol N O N N C > C !0 N C W O _T U U m N 0_ E E p U N OU ~ $ C o a o y .E ma E a a E � o O c U N 0mN. .UO 0Tmw" mp6 '' S OC Nom? +LaNm• -�mm SNc O N .OcNN.. 0 NW O N CN a �L: O m m = N .�Uy N7 - Ea U0 E o c `m S S E U p o m o N o LE g ac > " E o T' N 8 .c o N E LE O N d E m O .L.. -O O E y N O m m m O O m '� OL$ -O -O !LO U Of -O +N.. -BOO�O 'O 'm .0 ,a U T ry N O C% t0 m m o 'E '�� O i m a 2• o �Noi m E 'E " m e 'm o Ti m $ i ':OOyc O o OOo ZN'c 0--`y E JS -oo 16 ' OyO`mm O o o yNU 2cc o .�No 0 m> O O $aO � c U O O o a U_C o pi ma o 8i'aE m c— 'OO O b ¢ y y .y O. N C O a •G N fn y0 O S y O O O T U m N m g W to O O O O N i3 — '> .y N U m= N O c m m -i — a s O 'O y 'O E 'O „m. N O c m V am :° w 0_ t0 N E H a N m Eco � m a� N N y� 0 � 0 > y U N O m wm� m N N ` OWf O ca O O L-O O LL m N N m Ncm -OLm 3m Cc 20 $ ~ Z7 �_o IN 6 Z 0 OE y 'm I m C Op1-8 a 'm n N S-cmo ` o v o.o m -co a C U m t0 T C mm d 03 d • • • '� 'a�J Q K Z � m dy dd� 0 U m m w w = w a _ 5.0 cU Q� Q o>_ Q� Q p� R y Ry O R �y N U U N U a c .� c a E a r O y U= O= of = O= R O y O= O 9 c g -o_ c a$ o'o 2 a z 0'� 2 c t0 UN U y a o a o U C U O N = 2C '0 O +�+ c '0 O O a d O TO O !0 C � `ry R = 2 N � 0 m Of N Ley Of N c c o d O O LL s R y d s 6 S to O _O = O C O N '_ � .N � y .O O. R �p N O V a0. � _ _ O a NT 0 Q N E O R O O ;F O R R _id Uy_ U N E Y E C O N U R N tp R U C 2 O_ f0/_l !0 O O_ N.J O y m R -O O O m 'O T� C C Cp Z c U pE '� C U!0 O O -O R m -O 0= 2 d �Uj y 2 L w o a R 2 N o G O 5 E _ d o� m 8 o 7, N c 2 E a� d ¢t 3 oOthO= a coNi wC O p O RC Oid .L c X o Em OLE U O N O =3 p O R¢ R N E tOn O- U =O y C U E .O tp O E0 N !0 R m R ty O'J E O N O O Y N U c Ln tg U N U tLn '� tLn = U N � Ln = C O_ ry Z N C y= N t0 O O N '� E -¢m w EO0 0P f/y1 Otn 2 $2 a y ".RT c N y ENg 'No at e aT N E E _ .� R '� N +0., 'RO +0. 2 U c y .� c O O L O L �i O L iP R = U C ia N O O L p= Z L N d ii L d U N y= R O pO J O_ tEii m Q E O_ N F-' -O d O S H S U R H+ H R � Ot OI �+ Ol'� �O, • • • U � 'p N N jQ O U m p d pf O 01 p1 of U 0 U m S c R a _ 'o `o_ J3 .f3 R S c€ a a 2 € c a a o.o a 'E5 O O m N C7 C O t z L .0 R ._ E. .0 > 15 U O yO R p O R = 0� C 'N c 5 c .� O p >> p' S S r _p R Z R O R ry U y O w �0 N A ,lam R O p p O C~ E''c p N O z.J N O LL M N N N > E E Q '00>_ O R p Z N p O N c Y 7:c U ON O .R 8 N¢ O NOp NE L0RR Z E .pQ OL p > 0pN 0 d z U ¢ RE R W a+ L_ N i w , o0 .-OO N y U Cp.J pW ts U O N-,a 'O "2 O_ o(h m d o Ei (O N N W 9 O O O 'Z ` 'o_ �3 O U O U a? m U p m ? -po U N R .� 'p&' .N y a N N d 6 S 6 p =O D =O _� U C N y m O U O O U Lm S a N > N > > - O> A f o'p> y L m> $ ad m¢ �d y N R a+ N n C � � C O U m m m m w m L E m m m m c U Q T Q T Q y> Q T R C N C C N _ � C yn {`Op � y O C O O O 4. O W U 41 U U U U S $ $ S � $ O c pi O c R GN � as as as `c°a a c7 tO ma T a .O E O n-QyUj m -QyUj m -QyUj O C m yEy O o m 7 o .o Z CK C d� _ 3 c m �' = c c4 m aci aci ox E c m U N '�. U m = N N C S CD y c a ti E Ya E .°.� m c m d� `m a a o N m C a C ntF W N L ^.g p $ fG U t0 O O O c C ct6 O y C O N (O(Jt N SO 2$ V_ N w J N N y a U N y p d N N y +0 N N c N c R 3 N c N p` N no R c.y .0 n •V � ry c ry c U .E m .� z O-Z