HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-065 - Adopting Environmental Findings of FactLS 8.18.20
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-065
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA (1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011), (3) ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
AND (4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED MIXED -USE
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA LOCATED
AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks
to develop a Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a
14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California
("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and
in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has
proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1)
demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of
the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of
up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite
parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan
Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land
use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC);
and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the
zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96
(SD-96) designation; and
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and
certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") (State Clearinghouse/SCH
No. 2019080011) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01) and the GPA and AA
applications listed above; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the southwest corner of Redhill and
Warner Avenue, at a gateway intersection into the City of Santa Ana and a location
across major mixed -use development planning areas in the cities of Tustin and Irvine;
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(a), the
City as Lead Agency determined that an EIR was clearly required for the project, and
therefore did not prepare an Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, 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 all of the
following areas as required by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Appendices:
Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse
Gas Emissions; Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and
Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation;
Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project
Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on July
26, 2019, 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 (SCH No. 2019080011) would be prepared; 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 August 15, 2019, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental
review of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, ten (10) 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
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 2 of 8
LS 8.18.20
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impact
associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Transportation. Air Quality impacts stem from emissions from operation of the
project exceeding SCAQMD's threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that
would be derived from consumer products and vehicular activity that neither the
Applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts
stem from approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions being generated by
vehicle trips. Neither the Applicant nor the City can substantively or materially reduce
the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Lastly, Transportation impacts stem from the
project's requirement to pay fair share funds to improve right -turn overlap phasing at the
intersections of Grand and Warner Avenues and Redhill Avenue and Alton Parkway,
and to construct right -turn overlap phasing and prohibit southbound U-turns at the
intersection of Redhill Avenue and Barranca Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determines that mitigation measures are
required to address impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, 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
January 3, 2020; and
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 January 3, 2020; 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, a Planning Commission work-
study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed project
and described the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft
EIR was circulated for a 45-day review period, from January 3, 2020 to February 18,
2020;and
WHEREAS, during the 45-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
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 3 of 8
WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA environmental review
requirements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, on April 27,
2020, 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 April 27, 2020, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"),
attached hereto as Exhibit "C", 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 May 11, 2020 and May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the GPA, and AA
applications described above. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public
and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the
City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding
considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council
public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State
Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) 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 August 18, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and
Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were
afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01.
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
Project; and
WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR, and all attachments and
appendices 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
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 4 of 8
LS 8.18.20
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 incorporation
of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, and described in Section 4
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 3 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
2 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 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
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 5 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 5 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 5 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
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 5 of 8
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:
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:
1. Certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings
2. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", after balancing the
significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the
benefits of the Project.
Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", consistent with Public Resources Code
section 21081.6; makes 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.
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 6 of 8
LS 8.18.20
4. 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
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 18th day of August. 2020.
MZ,pfw. Puliklo
or
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By. / /=. —
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 7 of 8
AYES: Councilmembers Bacerra Mendoza, Penaloza, Sarmiento, Solorio
NOES: Councilmembers Pulido Villegas (2)
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None (0)
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers None (0)
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council,
Resolution No. 2020-065 to be the original
City of Santa Ana on August 18, 2020.
Date: 0 a (o -d E)
Resolution No. 2020-065
Page 8 of 8
do hereby attest to and certify the attached
resolution adopted by the City Council of the
Daisy Gome
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
EXHIBIT A
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR THE WARNER REDHILL MIXED -USE PROJECT
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011
CITY OF SANTA ANA DP NO. 2019-06
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further
states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects."
Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings
for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must
reach at least one of three permissible conclusions.
• The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd.
(a)(1)•)
• The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).)
• The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific 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:' (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives
or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code
section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social
and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as
another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553, 565). Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del
Mar Y. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, "'feasibility' under CEQA
encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of
the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency need not,
however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091,
subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the
imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347).
City of Santa Ana 7
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findings of Fact
Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant
environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel
Hills Homeowners Assn. Y. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate
the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible
mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage
from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. Y. County of Los
Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t)here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a
project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the
Project unfeasible").
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible
or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of
approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are
responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those
decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576).
The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but
not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the
Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the
following environmental impacts associated with the Project are:
(1) less than significant and do not require mitigation;
(2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level
of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or
(3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be
substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use
SECTION I
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CEQA Findings of Fact
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated January 2020, written
comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period, written responses
to those comments and changes to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR Errata making minor corrections
and revisions to the Final EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Santa Ana conducted an extensive environmental review of the Warner Redhill Mixed -Use
Project:
• The City of Santa Ana concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from July 26, 2019
(Modified on August 5, 2019), through August 29, 2019. The NOP was posted at the
Orange County Clerk's Office on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019. The notice was
published in the Orange County Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation. Under
CEQA, a Lead Agency may proceed directly with preparation of the EIR without
preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that an EIR will be required (State CEQA
Guidelines Section I5060[d]). The City of Santa Ana has made such a determination for
this Project and has not prepared an Initial Study.
• Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana
to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on August 15, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
at the Embassy Suites located at 1325 East Dyer Road in Santa Ana. The notice of a
public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on July 26, 2019 and August
5, 2019.
• Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 46-
day public review period (January 3, 2020 through February 18, 2020). The Notice of
Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was sent to all persons, agencies and organizations
on the interest list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for
distribution to public agencies, and published in the January 3, 2020 Orange County
Reporter. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on January 3, 2020.
Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana,
Planning Division Counter, located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701,
and the City of Santa Ana Public Library, located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana,
CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download via the following
City website location: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-
p ro jects-a nd-d ocum ents/ bowery.
• The Final EIR contains comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to
the Draft EIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day
agency review period prior to certification of the Final EIR.
• After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa
Ana hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval
of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment, however, the significant
effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and has determined
that remaining significant effects are found to be acceptable under Section 15093.
City of Santa Ana 3
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure
implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The City of Santa Ana
finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and
shall be binding upon the City and affected parties.
• The City of Santa Ana finds that the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for the
public health, safety, and welfare.
• The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final EIR in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA.
• Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the
Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project files; b) copy of the
Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to the Project applicant who is
responsible for providing copy of same to all CEQA "responsible" agencies.
City of Santa Ana 4
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION II
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as 'less than significant" where no mitigation is
required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Draft
EIR in this Section II. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts
of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures:
A. Aesthetics
Impact Finding: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft
EIR at p. 5.1-23).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are either urbanized or
planned for urbanization and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. The General Plan Scenic
Corridors Element does not identify any scenic resources or vistas at or adjacent to the Project
site. The nearest feature identified by the General Plan is Edinger Avenue, a "Secondary Street
Corridor", which is approximately 1 mile north of the site. Due to the flat topography and
distance, Edinger Avenue it is not visible from the Project site. Because there are no scenic vistas
within the viewshed of the Project site, no impacts related to the scenic vistas would occur from
implementation of the proposed Project.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-23).
Facts in Support of Findings: There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the
vicinity of the proposed Project (Caltrans 2019). The only officially designated scenic highway
within Orange County is a portion of SR-91 that is located between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim
city limit (Caltrans 2019), which is not in the vicinity of the Project site. Likewise, there are no
County -designated scenic highways that run through the City of Santa Ana. Further, the proposed
Project site is flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic
resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of the
Project. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would
occur.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and would not conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-24).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately 27-months. Views of
demolition and construction activities would exist from adjacent public view locations along Red
Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. During Project demolition and construction, various activities
would alter the character of the Project site and its surroundings. Graded surfaces, demolition and
construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic would be visible. Soil would also be
stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout
City of Santa Ana 5
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
the site. Construction -related visual impacts would not be constant over the 27-month construction
period (as different construction phases would involve varying activities occurring at different
times). Upon completion of construction, these short-term visual impacts would cease. Because the
views of construction activities would be temporary and changing as construction progresses,
impacts related to the visual degradation of the existing character or quality of the site would be
temporary and less than significant.
Operations
Implementation of the Project would result in a strong visual contrast from existing conditions but
would not degrade the character or quality of the site, which currently has limited visual character
or interest. The character of the site would change from setback urban views of industrial uses to
a residential, urban mixed -use village that would have a unifying urban modern architectural
theme. While implementation of the Project would alter the visual character of the site and
surroundings, it is not anticipated that a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality
would occur.
In addition, the proposed Project would be visually compatible with the existing and future built
environment in the Project area that includes various high -density, urban -style boxy large
buildings and ornamental landscaping. The areas in the viewshed of the Project site include urban
structures such as, Naval Air Station airplane hangars, two and four-story office structures, and a
5-story hotel. The undeveloped chained linked areas across from the Project site in the Tustin
Legacy Specific Plan are planned for employment buildings that would likely be modern in
architecture and are permitted to be 6-stories and 70-feet in height with a 40-foot setback from
Red Hill Avenue. Although the 94 foot high structure would be 24-feet higher than development
within the Tustin Legacy, and four stories taller than adjacent structures on Red Hill and across
Warner Avenue from the site, the modern urban and dense character of the proposed Project
would be similar to the existing and planned uses, which generate similar views. As a result, the
proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or
surrounding area, and impacts would be less than significant.
Regarding a potential conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality, the Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation
change from M-I (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed
mixed -use Project. As described in the City's Zoning Code Section 41-593.1, the purpose of the
SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design
principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of
property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are
required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural
review to ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds would be in keeping with the
neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the City or impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.
The proposed Project would create an attractive, cohesive mixed -use community through the use
of contemporary architectural materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required
by the Zoning Code, the proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to
ensure consistency with development standards. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with
applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Overall, impacts would be less
than significant.
City of Santa Ana 6
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-4).
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for
security purposes around all of the buildings and parking structures. Implementation of the proposed
Project would result in a higher intensity development on the site than currently exists, which would
contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor
lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with
the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-61 1.1 and Section 41-1304 that provides specifications for
shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the Project area is
within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required
to comply with the City's lighting regulations that would be verified by the City's Planning and Building
Agency during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project
would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than
significant.
Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces
such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would
have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective
materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. However, the
proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the
residential and commercial buildings would contain windows, the windows would be separated by
stucco and architectural treatments, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as
described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the
potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. In addition, the majority of vehicle parking would
be located within parking structures and the Project does not contain large surface parking lots
that could generate glare from numerous windshields aligned in one area. Therefore, the Project
would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant.
B. Air Quality
Impact Finding: Construction of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-15).
Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in
short-term and temporary emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5 lasting approximately 27-
months. The maximum daily construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod; and the modeling
includes compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403, 431.2, 1113, and 1186 / 1186.1, which are requirements
that would reduce air contaminants during construction. The Draft EIR Table 5.2-7, on page 5.2-16,
provides the maximum daily emissions of criteria air pollutants from construction of the proposed Project
and shows that SCAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. Thus, impacts related to construction emissions
would be less than significant with implementation of required SCAQMD Rules listed below.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and
specifications as implementation of Rule 403:
o All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds
exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
City of Santa Ana 7
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
o The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas
within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather.
Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three
times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for
the day.
o The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site
areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and
specifications as implementation of Rule 1113. The Project shall only use "Low -Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule
1113.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and
specifications as implementation of Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be
included or used in the new development.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.17).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Localized Construction Air Quality. As shown in the Draft EIR in Table 5.2-9, on page 5.2-17,
emissions during peak construction activity of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
localized significance threshold for any of the pollutants. Therefore, impacts related to localized
significant emissions from construction activity would be less than significant.
CO Hotspots. An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", can occur if an exceedance
of the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
With operations of the proposed Project and cumulative projects, the traffic volume (described in
Draft EIR at Table 5.2-10, on page 5.2-18) would not be high enough to generate a CO "hot
spot" per the 2003 AQMP hot spot study. Therefore, impacts related to CO "hot spots" from
operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.18).
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not emit other emissions, such as those
generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The type of
facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include
wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum
refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.
The proposed Project would implement retail and restaurant commercial and residential
development within the Project area. These land uses do not involve the types of uses that would
emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving
activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature,
and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the
City of Santa Ana 8
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction -related odors
would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor -producing materials.
In addition, all Project -generated solid waste would be stored in covered containers and removed
at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations and would not generate
objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts associated with other operation- and construction -
generated emissions, such as odors, would be less than significant.
C. Cultural Resources
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not contain any historic resources. As
described in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the Project site
(Phase 1 2018) (Appendix D of the Draft EIR), aerial photographs between 1938 and 1977 show
the site being used for agriculture or being vacant. The existing industrial buildings was
constructed in the early 1980s, which are not more than 39 years old and are not historic
resources. The industrial buildings were previously used by Ricoh Electronics Inc. for imaging and
electronics manufacturing. No historically important activities previously occurred within the
existing buildings. Overall, the site does not include any historic resources and implementation of
the proposed Project would not impact a historic resource.
In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any historic structures. Areas surrounding the site
consist of modern office buildings, business park buildings, modern public service facilities, and
vacant land that is proposed for new development. Therefore, redevelopment of the Project site
would not result in an indirect effect to any off -site historic resources. Overall, no impacts related
to historic resources would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The site has a long history of ground disturbance from previous
agricultural uses and development, as detailed in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix C of the
Draft EIR) describes that artificial fill was observed in field explorations up to 7.5 feet below
existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for
development of the existing buildings and removal of underground storage tanks. It is likely that
the site disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and
Warner Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have
limited the potential of the site to contain archaeological resources.
Also, as described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would
excavate onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5
feet beyond the building perimeters. The soils would be reconditioned and recompacted as
engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. The depth of the excavation is within
the previously disturbed soil depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in
impacts related to archaeological resources.
City of Santa Ana 9
May 2020
The Warner Radhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Overall, due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the
potential for archaeological resources is limited. Therefore, the Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources; and impacts would
be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-8).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been extensively disturbed and has not been
previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. In
the unanticipated event that human remains are found during project construction activities
compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that human
remains are treated with dignity and as specified by law.
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.
Compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations, would ensure
impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant.
D. Enemy
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction
or operation (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-5).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms,
petroleum -based fuels, electricity, and energy used in the production of construction materials.
Construction activities related to the proposed mixed -use Project would not be expected to result
in demand for fuel greater on a per -unit -of -development basis than other development projects
in Southern California. Construction would occur over a 27-month period and the demand for
construction -related electricity and fuels would be limited to those time frames.
Draft EIR pages 5.4-6 through 5.4-7 detail that construction of the proposed Project is estimated
to result in the need for 1,674,604 kWh of electricity, approximately 123,957 gallons of diesel
fuel. Construction workers would use approximately 291,025 gallons of fuel to travel to and from
the Project area. Approximately 25,976 gallons of fuel would be used by medium high duty and
160,174 gallons of fuel would be used for hauling by heavy-duty trucks during construction of the
proposed Project.
Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air
Resources Board (CARE) regulations and compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and the
use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption on
City of Santa Ana 10
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact
the Project site. Overall, construction activities would require limited energy consumption and
would comply with all existing regulations. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage
would be less than significant.
OOaeration
Once operational, the mixed -use Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as
well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling,
and lighting of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances
within buildings, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and
water to the areas where they would be consumed.
Draft EIR pages 5.4-8 and 5.4-9 detail that operation of the proposed Project is estimated to
result in the annual use of 1,236,920 gallons of fuel. In addition, the proposed Project would use
approximately 29,255,440 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and
approximately 12,721,140 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity.
The proposed mixed -use development would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy
efficiency standards. 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 that occurs
during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24
measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning
equipment (HVAC); 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. All development is required to comply with the adopted California
Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6).
The Project would consist of an urban infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential
and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. Since it would be undertaken on a currently developed
and underutilized 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.
In addition, 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. Furthermore, other existing and future
regulations are likely to result in more efficient use of all types of energy, and reduction in
reliance on non-renewable sources of energy. These include the federal Energy Independence
and Security Act, the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, SB 350 and AB 1007,
which are designed to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and reduce demand
by providing federal tax credits for purchasing fuel -efficient items and improving the renewable
fuel, appliance, and lighting standards. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not use
large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Uty of )onto Ana 7 1
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24
energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project. The City's administration of
the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation
measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In
addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy,
such as solar energy. Redevelopment of the site would not result in obstruction of opportunities for
use of renewable energy. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur.
E. Geology and Soils
Impact Finding: The Project would not 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. (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4) (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone and no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are
associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the
Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore
Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site. Because no known faults exist on the
site, the proposed Project would 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 other evidence of a fault, and impacts would not occur.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking
(Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is within a seismically active region, with numerous
faults capable of producing significant ground motions. The closest known active faults are
associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the
Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore
Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site (GEO 2019). Therefore, Project
implementation could subject people and structures to hazards from ground shaking. However,
seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the Project site is not at greater risk of
seismic activity or impacts as compared to other areas within the region.
The CBC includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by major structural failures or loss of life
resulting from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC
contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake
loads. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include
considerations for onsite soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including
the structural system and height.
City of Santa Ana 12
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
The City of Santa Ana has adopted the CBC as part of the Municipal Code 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. Structures built in the
City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC. The Project would be required to
adhere to the provisions of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review
process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety would reduce hazards
from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed Project would be required to 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 and is included as PPP GEO-1, the proposed
Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building
Standards Code (CBC) as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1,
to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards. As part of CBC
compliance, CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed
Project shall be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of
construction permit approval.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-8).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area. In
addition, the Geotechnical Report identified that onsite soils include relatively isolated loose to
medium dense sand layers, generally located approximately 40 to 50 feet below existing grade
that are considered susceptible to liquefaction; and the depth of groundwater is in the range of
24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), but the historic high groundwater is approximately 10
feet below the existing grade. Based on these onsite soils and groundwater conditions, the
Geotechnical Report determined that the seismic settlement potential is estimated to be 2 inches
or less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1-inch over a horizontal span of about
40 feet. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC,
as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1 (and in the Draft EIR as
PPP GEO-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.
The Geotechnical Report (Geo 2019) prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic design
criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential liquefaction and settlement.
Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would require proper construction of
building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground
movement, including liquefaction and settlement. The CBC, as currently adopted in the City's
Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by
potential major structural failures or loss of life resulting from geologic hazards. The City requires
the Project specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and
building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Therefore, the development
of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the
City of Santa Ana 13
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would reduce hazards from seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-
9).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet msl and
that the site is not located within a mapped area considered potentially susceptible to seismically
induced slope instability. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any hills or slopes that
could be subject to a landslide. Thus, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an
earthquake -induced landslide area, and the Project would not expose people or structures to
substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Draft
EIR at p. 5.5-9).
Facts in Support of Findings: The City's Municipal Code Chapter 18-156, Control of Urban
Runoff implements the requirements of the Orange County Municipal NDPES Storm Water Permit
(Order No. R8-2016-0001). All projects in the City are required to conform to the permit
requirements, which includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with
the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls
that are required to be implemented for the proposed Project. To reduce the potential for soil
erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD
(Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related
to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources
of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to
reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel
bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With compliance with the City's
Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that is required to be
prepared to implement the Project, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil
would be less than significant.
In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation
of the Project substantial areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. Also, the onsite
drainage features that would be installed by the Project have been designed to slow, filter, and
slowly discharge stormwater into the offsite drainage system, which would also reduce the
potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during Project operations. Furthermore, implementation
of the Project requires City approval of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), which would ensure that the City's Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and
appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for
soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
City of Santa Ana 14
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-10).
Facts in Support of Findings: The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet
msl and the site is not located on or adjacent to a hillside or slope. Based on the relatively flat
topography of the site, lack of a free face nearby and general lack of potentially liquefiable
layers in the upper 40 feet, the Geotechnical Report determined that the potential for lateral
spreading on the site is low. Thus, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than
significant. Also, as described previously, impacts related to landslides would not occur.
The Geotechnical Report identified that seismic inducted settlement onsite could be 2 inches or
less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1-inch over a horizontal span of about 40
feet The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic structural design
criteria that are specific to the onsite soils, including the soils settlement and minor ground
subsidence conditions that could occur. The Project includes excavation and recompaction of soils,
and development of foundation systems in compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1,
which would require proper construction of building foundations to reduce impacts related to
settlement and subsidence would not occur onsite.
Also, the CBC, as currently adopted in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1,
requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California -licensed civil engineer
provide site -specific engineering data for the proposed structures, which are reviewed by the
City for appropriate inclusion as part of the building plan check and development review process.
Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety
through implementation of as included as PPP GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at
5.5-10).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site contains medium stiff to hard clays with variable
sand content, as well as loose to medium dense, moist to wet clayey and silty sands. Due to the
clay content in the onsite soils, the site has the potential for expansion. However, as described in
the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the soils onsite would be excavated to a minimum of
5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters,
reconditioned, and recompacted as engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. As
part of reconditioning the compacted engineered fill, the soils would be moisture conditioned, as
required by the CBC for expansive soils.
Furthermore, prior to approval of construction, an engineering level design geotechnical report is
required to be prepared and submitted to the City that details the project designs that have been
included to address potential geotechnical and soil conditions pursuant to the CBC requirements,
that are included in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, and implemented
by PPP GEO-1. Compliance with the CBC, through design level geotechnical specifications that
City of Santa Ana 15
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, per PPP GEO-1 would ensure that
potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater (Draft EIR at 5.5-1 1).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system,
and the proposed Project would install onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer
lines adjacent to the site. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature (Draft,EIR at 5.5-1 1).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is underlain by Quaternary aged young alluvial fan
deposits and older artificial fill. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a
low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. Likewise, the Orange
County General Plan Figure VI-9 shows that the Project site is not located within an area of
paleontological sensitivity.
In addition, the Project site has been previously disturbed from agricultural and development
activity. Artificial fill was observed in the field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade
and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the
existing buildings. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have
further reduced the potential of the site to contain paleontological resources. Because the Project
site is within an area of low paleontological resource sensitivity, has been previously disturbed,
and the depth of Project excavated is within the previously disturbed soil depths, potential
impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Operation
Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to retail commercial, restaurant, and
multi -family residential development, which generally uses common hazardous materials,
including: solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although the
Project would utilize common types of hazardous materials, normal routine use of these products
pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment,
residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operational impacts related to
routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would
be less than significant.
City of Santa Ana 16
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction:
Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition, excavation, grading, and
construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use,
storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental
spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1) would minimize potential adverse
effects to workers, the public, and the environment to a less than significant level.
Asbestos Containing Materials. Buildings on the Project site were constructed in 1979 and 1981
when many structures were constructed with what are now recognized as hazardous building
materials, such as lead and asbestos. Demolition of these structures could result in the release of
hazardous materials. However, asbestos abatement contractors must follow state regulations
contained in California Code of Regulations Sections 1529, and 341.6 through 341.14 as
implemented by SCAQMD Rule 1403 to ensure that asbestos removed during demolition or
redevelopment of the existing buildings is transported and disposed of at an appropriate facility.
The contractor and hauler of the material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which
details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Section 19827.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition permit until
an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable
federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. These requirements
are included as PPP HAZ-1 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification to the City that
the appropriate activities related to asbestos have occurred, which would reduce the potential of
impacts related to asbestos to a less than significant level.
Lead Based Materials. Lead -based materials may also be located within existing structures on the
Project site. The lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development provide regulations related to the handling and disposal of lead -based
products. Federal regulations to manage and control exposure to lead -based paint are described
in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and state regulations related to lead
are provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as implemented by
Cal -OSHA. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage and
disposal of lead -containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit,
protective measures, monitoring and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers
exposed to lead -based materials. Cal/OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard requires project
applicants to develop and implement a lead compliance plan when lead -based paint would be
disturbed during construction or demolition activities. The plan must describe activities that could
emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect
workers from exposure to lead during construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires 24-
hour notification if more than 100 square feet of lead -based paint would be disturbed. These
City of Santa Ana 17
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
requirements are included as PPP HAZ-2 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification
to the City that the appropriate activities related to lead have occurred, which would reduce the
potential of impacts related to lead -based materials to a less than significant level.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant
shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from
the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading
and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.
PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant
shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been
conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project
applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be
taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with
prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and
proper disposal.
PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit
verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been
conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the
Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and
disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained
in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits,
exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by
workers exposed to lead.
Operation
Development under the proposed Project would involve multi -family, restaurant, and retail
commercial uses that would use and store common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents,
and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and landscape
maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including
fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides.
Normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a
significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. In
addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to be implemented for the
Project (included as PPP WQ-2). The WQMP would protect human health and the environment
should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the
Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
City of Santa Ana 18
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinas of Fact
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a
completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design.
Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving
waters.
Impact Finding: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school
(Draft EIR at p. 5.7-25).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located 0.7 mile from the closest school, which is
Heritage Elementary School, located at 15400 Landsdowne Road, Tustin. Thus, the proposed
Project would not be within one -quarter mile of an existing school.
Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments that was conducted
database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as
currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that although the site has a
history of various uses, and identified as previously generating hazardous wastes and clean-up
activities, the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Additionally, the Phase I ESA did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, and as a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a
hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport use airport or public
use airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26).
Facts in Support of Findings: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles
southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor. The Project site is not
located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone, as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1) and is located
outside of the airport's 55 CNEL contours (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3). Table 1 of the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport shows that residential land uses
outside of the 60 CNEL contour are "normally consistent". Thus, development of residential units on
the Project site would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area.
City of Santa Ana 19
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Also, because the Project would not exceed the JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA
(100:1 imaginary surface slope extending outward for 20,000 feet) (Final EIR Figure 1), the
Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area for JWA, not within the JWA
planning area boundary, FAA and ALUC notification of the proposed Project would not be
required. The tallest point on the proposed structures would be approximately 94-feet from
ground level. At 2.2 miles from JWA and at a maximum height of 94-feet, the Project would not
create any imaginary surfaces with any of the specific slope characteristics within the imaginary
surface area for the airport (shown on Figure 1 of the Final EIR).
In addition, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light,
steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the
proposed Project would not generate substantial light or glare. Exterior lighting fixtures and
security lighting would be installed in accordance with Municipal Code Division 3, Building Security
Regulations, which includes specifications for shielding and intensity of security lighting. In addition,
the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas of
glass on the buildings. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare.
As described in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, operation of the proposed residential and
commercial uses would not generate substantial quantities of steam, smoke, or dust emissions. As
described, dust emissions are regulated by AQMD requirements and construction related air
quality emissions that could include steam, smoke, and dust emissions would be less than significant
with implementation of the standard AQMD Rules listed in Section 5.2, Air Quality.
The proposed Project consists of residential and commercial uses that would include the use of
typical electronics, such as computers, televisions, and other electronics with wireless capability.
These types of electronics are currently being used by the existing industrial land uses on the site,
and other uses in the vicinity of the site. The new residential and commercial uses on the site would
use similar technology that does not cause electronic interference that could affect aircraft. Thus,
impacts related to electronic interference with operations of the JWA would not occur.
Overall, because the Project is not located within the JWA Airport Safety Zone, the Airport
Impact Zone, outside of the JWA 55 CNEL noise contour; and would not penetrate the imaginary
surfaces area or result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or
electronic interference, the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with
airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. Thus, Project -related
hazard and noise impacts associated with JWA operations would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-27).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would
occur within and adjacent to the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to
the Project site or adjacent areas. Full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to
be necessary. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be
required to implement adequate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles
through/around any required temporary road restrictions in accordance with Section 503 of the
California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which requires that prior to
City of Santa Ana 20
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area of encroachment be safeguarded
through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City's Building and
Safety Division during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities
would not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, implementation of
the Project through the City's permitting process would reduce potential construction related
physical interference impacts to emergency access to a less than significant level.
Operation
The Project would include vehicular access to the site from driveways on both Warner and Red
Hill Avenues. As described in draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, these driveways would
provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a
variety of routes for emergency responders to access the Project site and surrounding areas.
During operation of the Project, residents and commercial building tenants would be required to
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the
City and the OCFA. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as
verified by the City and OCFA, potential impacts related to emergency evacuation or emergency
response plans would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to
a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-28).
Facts in Support of Findings: 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. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would be
required to adhere to the following chapters of the City's Municipal Code to reduce potential fire
hazards: Chapter 8.2 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.4 Uniform Mechanical Code, Chapter 8.5
National Electric Code, and Chapter 14 City of Santa Ana Fire Code. Additionally, the Project
would be in compliance with any further guidelines from OCFA related to fire prevention and is
subject to approval by the City's Building Division. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires.
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Finding: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-1 1).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum
products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on
its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In
addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and
concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the
potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may
affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be
exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to
City of Santa Ana 21
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking
soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could
affect water quality.
However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by
the NPDES General Construction Permit and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that
Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would
be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project includes operation of retail and restaurant commercial and multi -family
residential uses. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals
from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from
landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into
surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. As described previously, San
Diego Creek Reach] and the Upper Newport Bay, to which the Project site ultimately drains, are
currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list for various pollutants.
However, operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements
of the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit to develop of a project -specific WQMP (included as PPP
WQ-2) that would describe implementation of LID infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and
source control and treatment control BMPs to protect surface water quality.
The Project site is located within the Selenium Concentration Area and the South Basin
Groundwater Protection Project area, and is adjacent to the Tustin Marine area, as shown in Draft
EIR Figure 5.8-1. Infiltration into the groundwater is prohibited by OCWD within these areas. As
such, infiltration of water quality pollutants from the Project would not occur, which would reduce
potential impacts to groundwater quality.
In addition, the proposed Project would install Modular Wetland System units for water quality
treatment, which have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile,
24-hour) from the proposed Project. The Modular Wetland System units proposed for the Project
consist of biotreatment systems that utilize multi -stage treatment processes including screening
media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber contains a catch basin inlet
filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out
larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts, metals, nutrients, and bacteria.
Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment of the water is done through a
variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the
planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and
plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit
collects treated flows and discharges it into the existing storm drain in Red Hill Avenue.
The WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The
Project's WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the
Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to
the existing regulations would ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not violate
any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality;
and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant
shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from
the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading
and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NO]) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.
PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a
completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design.
Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving
waters.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-13).
Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems,
Table 5.8-2 the City's water supply would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple
dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including
the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes to the projected
groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, impacts related to
groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
In addition, the onsite soils have a low infiltration rate and do not currently provide onsite
infiltration; and the Project site is located within an infiltration constraints area (Draft EIR Figure
5.8-1) and infiltration is prohibited due to existing pollutant plumes under or adjacent to the site.
Therefore, impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than
significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-14).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
The existing NPDES Construction General Permit and Orange County DAMP require preparation
and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction
activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions
related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that
are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern
during construction activities to a less than significant level.
Operation
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the Project
area would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains
and conveyed Modular Wetland System units for treatment. The Modular Wetland System units
contain catch basin inlet filters to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling
chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts,
metals, nutrients, and bacteria.
The MS4 permit and DAMP require new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as
PPP WQ-2) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or
sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. The proposed drainage
system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to
alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less
than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies
PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.
PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-15).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
As described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-
1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and
include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during
construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction
activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD
and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction
permitting process would prevent construction -related impacts related to potential alteration of a
drainage pattern or flooding on or off -site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
Operation
The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern by collecting runoff in roof drains, curbs,
and area drains and conveying it to one of four Modular Wetland System units for treatment.
Treated runoff would be conveyed to the existing 84-inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue.
Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from
predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1), the Project would manage the
increased flow with Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the
increased volume pursuant to the MS4 permit and DAMP requirements. The units would retain,
filter, and slowly discharge runoff into the existing off -site drain. As part of the permitting
approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by
the City's Engineering Division to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the
appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
MS4 permit and DAMP regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a
drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.
PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-16).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site
specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to
eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This
includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with
the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP
(per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent
construction -related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development
activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project would manage increased stormwater flow with Modular Wetland System units that
have been designed to accommodate the increased volume pursuant to the MS4 permit and
DAMP requirements. The units would retain, filter, treat, and slowly discharge runoff into the
existing off -site drain. Additionally, the City permitting process would ensure that the drainage
system accommodate new flows and that specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit and
DAMP regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge. Overall,
with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City's permitting process, Project
impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would be less than
significant.
Plans, Program and Policies
PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed previously.
Impact Finding: The Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-
17).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a stream or
river. Implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. In addition,
according to the FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J), the Project site is located within
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
"Zone X," which is an area determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood.
Therefore, there is a low potential for onsite flooding to occur.
The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern; and drainage would be
accommodated by onsite by Modular Wetland System units that have been sized to
accommodate the DAMP required design storm. Therefore, the Project would not result in
impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed
previously, the City's permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications
adhere to the existing MS4 permit and DAMP regulations, and compliance with existing
regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies
PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.
PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously.
Impact Finding; The Project would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood
hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18).
Fads in Support of Findings: The FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J) shows that the
Project site is located within "Zone X," which is an area of minimal flood hazard potential outside
of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Thus, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard
area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related
to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the Project.
The Project site is over 8.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone
identified by the California Department of Conservation. Thus, the Project site would not be
inundated by a tsunami that could result in the release of pollutants, and impacts would not occur.
Additionally, because the Project site is not within the vicinity of a water body, it is not at risk for
seiche flood hazards. Therefore, the release of pollutants on the Project site resulting from a
seiche inundation would not occur
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18).
Facts in Support of Findings: Use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP
as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that
Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would
be less than significant. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan.
Also, development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per the Regional MS4 Permit)
that would comply with the Orange County DAMP. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified
as part of the City's permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to
demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project
would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan.
In addition, as detailed previously, the OCWD manages basin water supply through the Basin
Production Percentage (BPP), such that, the anticipated production of groundwater would remain
City of Santa Ana 26
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
steady from 2025 through 2040 (as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1). As detailed in Draft EIR
Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City's supply of water listed in Draft EIR Table 5.8-
1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020
and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or
obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan would be less than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies
PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.
PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously
H. Land Use and Plannin
Impact Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Draft EIR at p.
5.9-20).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is surrounded by roadways on two sides and
existing business park and industrial warehouse buildings on the other two sides. Areas across
Warner Avenue, which is a 6-lane arterial roadway, include commercial office uses. The land
directly across Redhill Avenue (also a 6-lane arterial roadway) from the Project site is
undeveloped land within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area that is planned for employment
uses, such as: professional office, business park, and commercial uses.
Areas to the northeast of the site, across both Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, are also
within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area and are partially developed with public serving uses
that include a US Armed Forces Reserve Center, Orange County Sheriff Training Academy, and
an animal shelter.
The proposed Project would redevelop the site to provide a mixed -use development that would
provide residences, restaurant, and retail services near employment generating uses, which are
complementary community uses. The change of the Project site from a partially underutilized light
industrial site to a residential and commercial mixed -use site would not physically divide an
established community. In addition, the Project would not change roadways or install any
infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less
than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community.
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect. (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-21 and Final EIR Chapters 2 and 3).
Facts in Support of Findings:
2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS Goals that are relevant to the proposed Project focus largely
on maximizing mobility, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce
infrastructure costs, and provide for efficiency. The proposed Project would be consistent with the
applicable SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS goals, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.9-1. Therefore,
City of Santa Ana 27
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflict with RTP/SCS goals, and
impacts would not occur.
JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan. JWA is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the
Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor, but not within the AELUP Notification
area or JWA planning area. As detailed in the Final EIR, the Project site is 1) located outside of
the JWA 60 CNEL contour (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3); 2) not located within the airport
safety zones (Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1); and 3) would not would not penetrate the FAR Part 77
100:1 Notification Area elevation (Final EIR Figure 1). As a result, the AELUP identifies the
proposed mix -use residential land uses as normally consistent. Thus, pursuant to the AELUP for
JWA, impacts related to land use compatibility would not occur.
Land Use Consistency. Development of the site for multi -family residential and commercial
(retail restaurant) uses would integrate into the planned development of these adjacent and
nearby areas. The site would provide housing for local employees working nearby in Santa Ana,
Tustin, and Irvine. The site would also provide commercial retail services and restaurants for onsite
residents and employees working nearby. The site would provide both vehicular and pedestrian
access and would integrate into the land uses of the area.
The Project would not result in a land use inconsistency. Rather, designating lands for mixed -uses,
including multi -family residential, would provide locational efficiently as it allows people to work,
live, and obtain services and restaurants within a small area, which has the potential to reduce
Vehicle Miles Traveled in comparison to residential development that is farther from employment
services and restaurants.
Also, 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 PAO land
use designation does not provide avoidance of an environmental effect and the DC land use
designation provides for development flexibility to design a project that could avoid an
environmental effect. Therefore, impacts related to land use inconsistency would be less than
significant.
General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives. A detailed analysis of the proposed Project's
consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that
serve to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts is provided in Draft EIR Table 5.9-3. As
described in the Table, the proposed Project would 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.
Zoning Code. A majority of the proposed development consists of development of 6 story mixed
use structures and 7-levels of above ground parking that would be approximately 94-feet in
height at the tallest point. The purpose of the proposed SD zone is to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and
harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When
development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code
Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review. The Project would create
an attractive, cohesive mixed -use community through the use of contemporary architectural
materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required by the Zoning Code, the
City of Santa Ana - 28
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with
development standards. Thus, impacts related to zoning would not occur from the proposed
Project.
I. Noise
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-15).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Per Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code noise sources associated with
construction activities are exempt from the City's established noise standards as long as the
activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The proposed Project's construction
activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the proposed Project would be in
compliance with the City's construction related noise standards.
As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-6, construction noise at the nearby receiver locations would
range from 51.0 to 71.4 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the 85 dba Leq daytime construction
noise level threshold (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Criteria
for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure) at nearby non-residential non -
sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
Also, the increase in temporary noise from Project construction, as detailed in Draft EIR Table
5.10-7, would not exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold (per Caltrans Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol). Therefore, impacts related to substantial increases in ambient noise related to
construction activity would be less than significant.
Operation
Onsite Operational Noise. Noise generated by the Project site would occur from stationary
equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed
for the new development, use of parking facilities, trash removal activity, and activity at outdoor
gathering areas. Based on these typical noise levels, operation of the Project would not result in
an exceedance of the City's Municipal Code Section 18-313 noise standards. Also, the City's
building and plan check permitting process includes verification that the location of operational
noise sources would not result in an exceedance of the municipal code standards. Thus, the City's
standards development permitting process would ensure that the proposed Project would not
generate on -site operational noise that would exceed noise standards. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
Onsite Traffic Noise. The location and design of the multi -family residential outdoor common
areas substantially limits the exposure to traffic noise. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-8, the
exterior noise levels at the multi -family residential outdoor common areas would range from 45.1
to 57.7 dBA CNEL, which is below the General Plan Noise Element 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise
level standard for outdoor common areas. Therefore, the on -site traffic noise impacts at the multi-
family residential outdoor common areas would be less than significant.
City of Santa Ana 29
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Off site Traffic Noise. In the existing with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-9) noise would
range from 66.8 to 75.8 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project A would generate a
noise level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less
than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise
impacts in the existing plus Project condition would be less than significant.
In the opening year (2022) with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-10) noise would range
from 67.4 to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise
level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the
1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the
opening year plus Project condition would be less than significant.
In 2040 with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-1 1) noise would range from 69.7 to 76.6
dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise level increase of up to
0.4 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL
threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the 2040 plus Project
condition would be less than significant.
Interior Noise. The roadways near the Project site would generate noise. However, Draft EIR
Tables 5.10-12 through 5.10-15 show that based with a "windows closed" condition with
standard windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, the interior noise levels
of the residential units would be below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore,
impacts related to interior noise would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-26).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in
varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to
the affected structures and soil type. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration
with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 85 to 667
feet from construction, vibration levels are anticipated to range from 0.001 to 0.014 in/sec PPV,
as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-16. These vibration levels would not be sustained during the
entire construction period but would occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment
is operating in the vicinity of the sensitive receivers. This level of vibration would be below the
Caltrans building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV and vibration standard of 0.04 in/sec PPV
for human annoyance at all receiver locations. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed commercial and multi -family uses would include heavy trucks for
residents moving in and out of the rental units, product deliveries to retail and restaurant uses,
and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle
characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the
heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based
on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers
would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and
0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive airport noise levels within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-27).
Facts in Support of Findings: The exterior noise thresholds outlined in the AELUP, multi -family
residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA
CNEL, conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL and normally
inconsistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL. For commercial retail land use, exterior noise
levels are considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL and
conditionally consistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL.
As shown on Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise
level contour boundaries of JWA. Therefore, according to the AELUP, the Project residential and
commercial retail land use is considered normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior
noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the
City's municipal code permissible noise levels. Additionally, the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance
that prohibits commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals
between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restrictions substantially limit the aircraft noise
during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. Overall, the Project site would not be
exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
J. Population and Housing
Impact Finding: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 1-9).
Facts in Support of Findings: Draft EIR Table 5.11-7 shows that at full occupancy the Project
would house approximately 2,081 residents, which would constitute a 0.62 percent increase over
the 2019 City of Santa Ana population of 337,716. In addition, the 1,150 new multi -family units
would constitute a 1.5 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a
4.5 percent increase in the number of the multi -family residential units (5+ units) within the City.
As SCAG projects that the City and County will experience a population increase of 7.4 percent
by 2040, the population of the Project would be within the projected population growth.
Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units throughout the County would increase by
10.2 percent by 2040. Thus, the 1,150 new multi -family units would also be within the SCAG
projected growth. Additionally, the 320 employment opportunities that would be generated by
the Project would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and
therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth.
The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.08 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The
proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in 2040, as
shown in Draft EIR Table 5.11-8. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family
uty of )onto Ana 31
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
housing on the Project site in a jobs -rich area, where employees can easily travel to nearby
employment opportunities.
Regarding infrastructure, the Project site is adjacent to existing roadways that would not be
extended to serve the Project. Likewise, water and wastewater services would be provided by
connections to the existing infrastructure within Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, which would
accommodate the proposed Project, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service
Systems. Provision of continued (but greater volumes) water and sewer services to the Project site
would not result in the need to extend infrastructure. Therefore, indirect impacts related to the
extension of infrastructure would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Overall, the Project would not result in inducement of population growth that would have the
potential to create a significant physical change to the environment. As a result, impacts related to
population growth are less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 1-1 1).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently developed with three industrial
buildings, one of which is currently being used as a temporary 200-bed homeless shelter through
a short-term lease for use of the site on an interim basis until redevelopment of the site
commences. The City of Santa Ana is working on various homeless shelter solutions, including the
purchase of a permanent homeless shelter site, that are anticipated to be available for the
existing persons on the Project site prior to construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people, such that
construction of replacement housing elsewhere would be necessary. As a result, impacts would be
less than significant.
K. Public Services
Fire Protection
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and
response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-
4).
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents and
320 employees at full occupancy. This residential and employee population is expected to create
the typical range of service calls to OCFA that are largely related to medical emergencies.
However, fire protection equipment and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed (with
assistance from revenue provided by the Project and the fire facilities fee required per Chapter
8-46 of the Municipal Code) to expand fire protection and emergency medical staffing and
equipment provided from existing stations and better accommodate simultaneous service calls.
Because the Project site is within 3.5 miles of 6 existing fire stations and the Project site is within a
developed area that is currently served by these stations, the Project would not result in the
requirement to construct a new or physically altered fire station. Therefore, impacts related to fire
protection services would be less than significant.
City of Santa Ana 32
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Police Services
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and
response times or other performance objectives for police services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project addresses typical residential security concerns
by providing low -intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and
24-hour security personnel. Pursuant to the City's existing permitting process, the Police
Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that crime prevention design
measures are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment.
The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement
services and would require two additional officers based on the Police Department's 2018
staffing of 1.07 officers per thousand population. The two additional officers could be located at
the Southeast Substation that is 2.2 miles from the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not result in the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. Thus,
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities
would not occur, and impacts are less than significant.
School Services
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-10).
Facts in Support of Findings; The proposed Project would develop 1,150 residential units, which
would provide housing for families that have school children. As detailed in Draft EIR Section
5.12.4.5, School Service Environmental Impacts, the proposed Project would result in 334 students
at full occupancy. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.12-2, the school facilities that would serve the
Project have a remaining capacity for 1,589 students, which would be able to accommodate the
student from the site and continue to have capacity to serve additional students.
In addition, the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school
impact fee assessment. The existing Santa Ana Unified School District development impact fee is
$3.79 per square foot for all new residential development, and $0.61 per square foot for new
commercial development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay
developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and
payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result,
impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.
L. Park and Recreation
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-5).
ury or aama Ana 33
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents at
full occupancy and includes 174,555 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and
approximately 8,008 square feet of interior amenities to total 183,363 square feet of
recreational and open space onsite. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the
park and recreation needs of Project residents.
The new residential population is also anticipated to utilize existing off -site park and recreation
facilities. As described listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-1, there is currently 81.88 acres of Santa
Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. These existing City of Santa Ana parks provide a
variety of facilities that include sports fields, exercise equipment, picnic areas, and playgrounds.
In addition, there are 97.9 acres of parkland within the City of Tustin and 63.6 acres of parkland
within the City of Irvine Park facilities (listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-2 and the Final EIR Chapter
3) that are also within 3 miles of the Project site and are likely (due to location) to be used by
residents of the proposed Project. This equals approximately 243.38 acres of existing parkland
within three miles of the site, which equates to 5,094.49 acres of parkland per Project resident at
full occupancy.
Based on a standard of 2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents
(Municipal Code Section 35-108), the proposed Project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to
serve the new residents. The Project includes a total of 4.2 acres (183,363 square feet) of park
and recreation area. Therefore, the Project would include the Municipal Code required park
and/or recreational space.
Based on the existing amount of 243.38 acres of existing park and recreation facilities within 3
miles 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 proposed 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, Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-111 require that residential
development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation
facilities prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction which adds net residential
units. Thus, the proposed Project would be required to pay park and recreation fees to "preserve
an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational
facilities", as stated in Municipal Code Section 35-110. Therefore, impacts related to park and
recreation service facilities would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in increased use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-6).
Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the California State Parks information for the southern
California Region, the anticipated number of Project residents at full occupancy (2,081 residents),
the distance and type of recreational facilities near the Project site, it is anticipated that the
Project would generate 348 additional park users two or more times per week, 287 additional
park users about once per week, 429 additional park users once or twice per month, 508
additional park users several times a year, and 314 additional park users once or twice a year
that would utilize the 245.38 acres of parks within 3 miles of the Project site.
City of Santa Ana 34
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
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 all
full capacity of the proposed Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing
parks and recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.
In addition, as listed Park and Recreation Regulatory Setting Section, 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. Also, Sections 35-108 and 35-11 1
requires that any person adding residential units shall pay the park and recreation fees prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The Municipal Code describes that park and recreation fees are
for the purpose of preserving an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use
of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such park and recreational 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 within Santa Ana.
In addition, use of sports fields is largely by sports leagues that pay fees to the City for use of
the facilities, which is used to fund maintenance and improvements related to use of the facilities.
Any additional residents that are involved in sports leagues would provide this funding to reduce
impacts. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of
park and recreation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: The project includes recreational facilities. The impacts of
development of the recreational amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed
Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the EIR. For example,
activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park and recreational
components of this Project are analyzed in the Draft EIR Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Noise, and Transportation Sections.
In addition, while the Project would contribute park development fees pursuant to Municipal Code
Sections 35-108, 35-1 10, and 35-111 to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance
parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and
the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would
be less than significant.
M. Transportation
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b) (Final EIR 5.14, Transportation, at p. 5.14-31).
Facts in Support of Findings: As described in the Final EIR, a direct Project impact would occur if
the Project generates a VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. The Project
related VMT/SP is 5.14 and the Countywide Average VMT/SP is 14.71. Thus, the VMT/SP of the
Project is 35 percent of the Countywide Average VMT/SP; and the Project would not generate
City of Santa Ana 35
May 2020
The Werner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. Thus, direct Project impacts related
to VMT would be less than significant.
In addition, the City's screening criteria for VMT cumulative impacts, include project consistency
with the RTP/SCS or results in an increase in VMT within the City. As shown on Final EIR
Transportation Section Table 4.14-13, the Project results in a net decrease in VMT. Also, Table
5.14-14 shows that the Project's VMT/SP is approximately 22 percent lower than the cumulative VMT/SP
for the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a negative effect on VMT/SP at the citywide level,
and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Impact Finding:
The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR at
p. 5.14-23).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes development of mixed uses that include
residential, retail/restaurant commercial, and open space recreation. The Project includes
community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The
proposed Project would be accessed from one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways
on Warner Avenue that provide direct access to parking areas.
The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the proposed
improvements would be required to be installed in conformance with City design standards. The
City's construction permitting process includes review Project site plans to ensure that no
potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. For
example, sight distance at each Project driveway would be reviewed for conformance with City
of Santa Ana sight distance standards at the time of permitting approvals for grading,
landscape, onsite circulation construction, and street improvement plans. As a result, impacts
related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR at p.
5.14-23).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction:
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would
occur within and adjacent to the Project area and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles
to the Project site or adjacent areas. The roadway improvements and installation of driveways
that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the
temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected
to be necessary. However, construction activities may temporarily restrict. vehicular traffic that
could increase hazards. Therefore, the construction activities would be required to implement
measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required
temporary road restrictions, and ensure the safety of passage in accordance 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, which would be ensured through the
City's permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process
would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related
emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.
City of Santa Ana 36
May 2020
The Warner RedhN Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Operation
the Project includes one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways on Warner Avenue that
provide direct access to parking areas. As described previously, these driveways would provide
adequate and safe circulation to and from the Project site and would provide a several routes for
emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site and surrounding areas.
Additionally, during operation of the Project, building tenants would be required to maintain
adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the City and the
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) through operational permitting and inspections. Because the
Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City and OCFA
potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
N. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k) (Draft El at p. 5.15-5).
Facts in Support of Findings: There are no sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred
places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either
eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical
resources on the Project site. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent letters to 18
Native American representatives identified by NAHC, notifying them of the proposed Project.
One California Native American tribe request for consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians — Kizh Nation. Mr. Andrew Salas provided oral information about the use of the Orange
County area for Native American village sites and the City provided the history of uses and
development of on the Project site, including the depth of previous and existing infrastructure and
foundation systems on the site. Based on the consultation conducted, no TCRs were identified.
The Project site includes three modern industrial buildings that were developed in the early 1980s
and do not involve tribal cultural resources. The site has a long history of ground disturbance from
previous agricultural uses and development. Artificial fill was observed in geotechnical field
explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction
ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings. It is likely that the site
disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and Warner
Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have limited the
potential of the site to contain tribal cultural resources. Also, the proposed Project would excavate
onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet
beyond the building perimeters. The depth of the excavation is within the previously disturbed soil
depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in impacts related to tribal
cultural resources.
Overall, the Project site does not include resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources; and due to
the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for tribal
cultural resources is limited. Therefore, Project impacts to tribal cultural resource that are listed or
City of Santa Ana 37
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or other register of historical
resources would be less than significant.
O. Utilities and Service Systems
Water
Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities,
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-6).
Fads in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would install new water infrastructure on the
Project site that would connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Warner Avenue. The new
onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences, commercial uses,
and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen
Plumbing Code for efficient use of water.
The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing 12-inch water
line located within the Red Hill Avenue rights -of -way that has the capacity to provide the
increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and 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 proposed Project and would not
provide water to any off -site areas.
The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve
the proposed multi -family residential and commercial uses is included as part of the proposed
Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified
throughout the Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of
new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Draft EIR at p.
5.16-7).
Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-4, the proposed Project would
result in a total demand of 269 AFY at full occupancy, which would be a 245.27 AFY increase in
comparison to the water demand from the existing buildings that are included in the UWMP
assumptions. This equates to an 8.1 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between
2015 and 2040 of 3,028 AFY that is anticipated by the 2015 UWMP. Thus, the City would have
water supplies available to serve the Project.
In addition, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-2, the City's available supply, including
groundwater and imported water, will meet projected demand that includes the proposed Project
during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies
from the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Wastewater
City of Santa Ana 38
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-11).
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes replacing approximately 367 feet of the
existing 8-inch City sewer line in Warner Avenue, between the Project site and the Orange
County Sanitation sewer line in Red Hill Avenue, with a 10-inch sewer. In addition, the Project
would install a new onsite sewer system that would connect to off -site City of Santa Ana sewer
facilities. Approximately half the Project site would discharge wastewater directly into a City -
owned manhole located at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. The other half
of the Project site would discharge wastewater into the improved 10-inch sewer in Warner
Avenue to the existing 42-inch sewer in Red Hill Avenue. Based on results of the sewer flow
monitoring and the City's Design Criteria for wastewater generation rates, the sewer lines that
would serve the Project site would have a peak flow half full capacity of 0.65 cfs which would is
adequate capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the proposed Project.
The construction activities related to replacing 367 feet of 8-inch water line with 10-inch water
line within the Warner Avenue right of way and installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that
would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not
result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft EIR. As
the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the Project, it would not result in the need for
construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments (Draft EIR at p.
5.16-1 1).
Facts in Support of Findings: The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 has an additional capacity of
87 mgd, which would accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the
proposed Project that would generate 201,906 gpd. As a result, implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the
Project's demand in addition to existing service commitments, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Drainaae
Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-13).
Facts in Support of Findings: The runoff within the Project site would be collected by roof drains,
surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed to Modular Wetland
System units that would be installed as part of the Project to retain, filter, and slowly discharge
drainage. The Modular Wetland System units have been sized to treat runoff from the Design
Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). Treated runoff from the Modular Wetland System units
would be discharged from the flow controlling Modular Wetland System units to the existing 84-
inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue. From there, flows would travel southeast and be
temporarily detained in an existing flood control basin before entering the Barranca Channel,
City of Santa Ana 39
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
which discharges into San Diego Creek Reach 1, then the Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport
Bay, and finally to the Pacific Ocean at Balboa Beach.
Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from
predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.15-5), the Project would manage the
increased flow by the four Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to
accommodate the increased volume. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a need
to expand or construct new off -site drainage systems and impacts to stormwater drainage
systems would be less than significant.
Solid Waste
Impact Finding: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-15).
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
The Project is estimated to generate approximately 460 tons of waste during demolition and
additional waste during construction, which would occur over a 27-month period. However,
Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and
construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be
disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated.
Therefore, demolition activities, which would generate the most solid waste would generate
approximately 161 tons of solid waste. Demolition activities would occur over a 30 workday (6
week) period. This equates to approximately 5.4 tons of debris per day.
The Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste.
In September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons. Thus, the facility had
additional capacity of 1,533 tons per day (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman
Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.4 tons of waste per week
during construction of the proposed Project.
Operation
Operation of the Project at buildout would generate approximately 1,137 tons of solid waste
per year, at least 75 percent of which is required by California law to be recycled, which would
reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 284.25 tons per year, or 5.47 tons
per week, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.16-6.
As the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid
waste, and in September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons, the facility had
additional capacity of 1,533 tons (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman Sanitary
Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.47 tons of waste per week. Thus, the
proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than
significant.
City of Santa Ana 40
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project GEQA Findings of Fact
Impact Finding: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-16).
Facts in Support of Findings: All solid waste -generating activities within the City is subject to the
requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code
that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of
the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a
minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Project would
be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City's development project
permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and
regulations; and impacts would not occur.
City of Santa Ana 41
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION III
IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that would avoid or
substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than
significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that would reduce
them to a less than significant level are detailed in the EIR and summarized below.
A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction:
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined that asbestos -containing materials and
lead -based paint may exist due to the date of construction of the existing buildings. Therefore,
asbestos surveys and abatement would be required prior to demolition or renovation of the
existing building pursuant to the existing South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
Cal/OSHA, and the sections of the California Health and Safety Code, which are described
above in the Regulatory Setting. These requirements were developed to protect human health
and the environment from the hazards associated with exposure to lead based materials and
airborne asbestos fibers. Compliance with these existing regulations, as ensured through the
permitting process and included as PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2, would reduce impacts related to
routine transport and disposal of asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint during
construction activities to a less than significant level.
In addition, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that
would require excavation and disposal as part of excavation and grading activities. This includes
approximately, 850 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils (above residential screening levels)
and 80 cubic yards of TPH-(diesel) contaminated soils. These contaminated soils would need to be
excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities as required by DTSC,
California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation
activities that would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has
the potential to result in a hazard to the public or environment.
As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks
related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated
soils. 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 TPH
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 TPH
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
City of Santa Ana 42
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
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 from contaminated
soils would be less than significant.
Plans, Program and Policies:
PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant
shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been
conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project
applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be
taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with
prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and
proper disposal.
PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit
verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been
conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the
Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and
disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained
in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits,
exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by
workers exposed to lead.
Mitigation Measures:
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 removed. In addition, sampling of soil shall be
conducted during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that
residential 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.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
• 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.
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Contaminated Soils. As described previously, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic
yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal pursuant to the
requirements of the DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA,
and the OCHCA. Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation activities that
would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential
to result in upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
As a result, Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be prepared
and used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of TPH 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 TPH impacted
soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a
landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards from contaminated soils would be less than significant.
Undocumented Hazardous Materials. The Project site has a long history of various uses that
includes use and storage of hazardous materials. As a result, there is the potential for
undocumented hazardous material to exist onsite. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances
and hazardous building materials 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). State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous
materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and in the event that such
materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment.
These regulations are detailed previously and include, but are not limited to, the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act that is implemented by
OSHA, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Additionally, the California Integrated
Waste Management Board and the RWQCB specifically address management of hazardous
materials and waste handling in their adopted regulations (CCR, Title 14 and CCR, Title 27).
Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts related to other soil contamination,
City of Santa Ana 44
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
not identified previously. Thus, with implementation of existing regulations and Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1, impacts related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan (SMP). As listed previously.
H. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 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, that considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe
(Draft El at p. 5.15-6).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths.
The proposed Project involves excavation; however, no substantial evidence exists that TCRs are
present in the Project site. Although, no TCRs have been identified, during the SB 18/AB 52
consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies
within its ancestral tribal territory within a potentially sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential
adverse effects to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been included to
provide for Native American resource sensitivity training, monitoring, 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 in 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 TCRs would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any permits for
initial site clearing (such as pavement removal, grubbing, tree removals) or issuance of permits
allowing ground -disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill
(including as boring, grading, excavation, drilling, potholing or auguring, and trenching), the City
of Santa Ana shall ensure that the project applicant/developer retain qualified Native American
Monitor(s). The monitor(s) shall be approved by the tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno Band
of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on -site during initial site clearing and construction
that involves ground disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill
identified herein. The monitor shall 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. The Native American monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs on a
daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations,
City of Santa Ana 45
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on -site monitoring shall end when grading and
excavation activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed) are completed, or when the tribal
representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural
resources, whichever occurs first.
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 also 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 an "archeological 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 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.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION IV
RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "it is the policy of the state that public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or
other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
Section 15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors."
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible measures outlined in the
Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite
these significant and unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of
the benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein.
P. Air Quality
Impact Finding: The Project would result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-14).
Facts in Support of Findings: The SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the
proposed Project. Pursuant to Consistency Criterion No. 1, projects that are consistent with the regional
population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with
the AQMP growth projections, because the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use
and transportation control portions of the AQMP that result in air quality emissions.
As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the proposed 1,150 multi -family residential
units at full occupancy would result in a population of approximately 2,081 residents and the proposed
80,000 square feet of commercial space would generate approximately 320 employees at full
occupancy. This equates to a 1.5 percent increase in residential units within the City, and the estimated
2,081 residents at complete occupancy would be 0.62 percent of the City's population.
Based on SCAG's 2016 Integrated Growth Forecast, a 7.4 percent increase in growth throughout the
County is anticipated to occur through 2040. Hence, the cumulative growth with implementation of the
proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts and population base. Development
of the proposed Project, in combination with other development projects in the vicinity would result in a
cumulative increase in population. However, the Project's portion of the cumulative increase in residential
units (1,150) is limited at 2.39 percent. Thus, the proposed 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 Project vicinity, while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate.
The Project region is jobs -rich. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be
2.13 in 2040. The proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in
2040, as shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.1 1-8 in Section 5.1 1, Population and Housing. The balance of jobs
and housing and the existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure adjacent to the Project site that
is available for use would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as
City of Santa Ana 47
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
employees could easily travel to employment opportunities within the vicinity of the Project site, including
areas within the Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Thus, the proposed Project would support AQMP
objectives to reduce trips, promote infill/redevelopment, and balance jobs and housing, and would not
conflict with implementation of the AQMP.
In addition, implementing redevelopment of the site, the Project would utilize existing infrastructure such as
roadways, drainage, sewer and other infrastructure, and would be consistent with the SCAG objective to
"Encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduce costs in infrastructure construction and
make better use of existing facilities." As a result, the proposed Project would comply with Consistency
Criterion No. 1 listed above in the Methodology Section.
Regarding Consistency Criterion No. 2, which evaluates the potential of the proposed Project to
increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; an impact would occur if the
long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD's regional
significance thresholds for operation -phase emissions. As detailed below in Impact AQ-2,
operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for emissions of
VOCs and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below
the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an impact related to
Consistency Criterion No. 2. As a result, impacts related to consistency with the AQMP would be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact Finding: Operation of the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-16).
Fads in Support of Findings: Implementation of the Project would result in long-term emissions of
criteria air pollutants from area sources generated by the proposed commercial and residential
uses, such as vehicular emissions, natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of
architectural coatings, and use of consumer products. The emissions from the proposed Project are
primarily from vehicle trips. As described in Section 5.14, Transportation, the proposed Project is
anticipated to generate 11,546 daily trips, with 534 a.m. peak hour trips and 604 p.m. peak
hour trips. The operational emissions from the Project are provided in the Draft EIR Table 5.2-8, on
page 5.2-17, which shows that emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed
the threshold of significance for VOCs. The majority of VOC emissions would be derived from
consumer products and mobile activity. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen
aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries, the use of which cannot be controlled by the City. Likewise,
vehicular emissions cannot be controlled by either the Project applicant or the City. There are no
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold.
Therefore, operational emissions of the Project would be significant and unavoidable.
Q. Greenhouse Gases
Impact Finding: The Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-10).
Fads in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle
trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater transport (the energy used
to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
proposed Project would be generated off -site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider.
GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy
required to transport water from its source. GHG emissions from solid waste disposal is
associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. As shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.6-3,
page 5.6-1 1, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated increase in GHG emissions that
would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to be 9,861.60
MTCO2e per year.
This exceeds the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, additional
analysis is provided based upon the direction of SCAQMD's Tier 4 thresholds through use of the
City's CAP emissions targets and projected service population, which as detailed in Draft EIR
Section 5.6.5, Methodology, identified a threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population in the
Project opening year if 2022.
The Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, shows that the Project would result in 2,081
residents and 320 employees at full occupancy. This results in a service population of 2,401
(2,081 residents + 320 employees = 2,401 service population). The Project's net increase in
GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year divided by the service population of the Project
would result in 4.10 MTCO2e annually per service population, which exceeds the threshold of
3.16 MTCO2e per service population.
Approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources
(vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or
materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. However, the Project is an urban
infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses.
The site 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 on land without
close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and
freeways.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has provided guidance for
mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use development projects within its
guidance document titled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA 2010). The
land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the CAPCOA guidance related to a
reduction of VMT:
• Area Density: CAPCOA identifies that increases in area density, measured in terms of
persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area, reduces VMT associated with transportation,
as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation
for the implementation of other strategies such as enhanced transit services (CAPCOA
guidance measure LUT-1). According to CAPCOA, the reduction in VMT from increases in
area density applies to urban and suburban settings for residential, retail, office,
industrial, and mixed -use projects. The urban infill/redevelopment Project would provide
residential, retail/restaurant, and employment uses and is located near other employment
opportunities, services, and retail commercial uses. The proposed Project would provide an
increase in area residential density and an improvement to the jobs -housing balance. As
City of Santa Ana 49
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
detailed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the Project region has an existing and
projected future imbalance between the number of jobs and housing units. Thus, per
CAPCOA guidance, the addition of residential units within the area would reduce VMT
and the VMT-related GHG emissions.
• Location Efficiency: Location efficiency describes the location of a project relative to the
type of urban landscape such as an urban area, compact infill, or suburban center.
CAPCOA guidance measure LUT-2.22 describes that a reduction in VMT and the related
GHG emissions occurs from development within urban areas that include residential, retail,
office, industrial, mixed -uses, and transportation access. As described previously, the
Project is located in an urban infill location and would provide residential units near
employment, retail, and services. Additionally, the Project is located adjacent to the
Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus lines that runs along Red Hill Avenue and
Warner Avenue that makes use of transit efficient. Thus, the location efficiently of the
Project would provide for reduced VMT and the related GHG emissions.
Also, according to the CAPCOA guidance, factors that contribute to VMT reductions include
pedestrian connectivity between the project site and off -site destinations. The Project would
include onsite sidewalks that would connect to the existing offsite sidewalks and bicycle lanes exist
in the Project vicinity. Both walking and bicycling to onsite or nearby destinations would reduce
transportation energy use and the related GHG emissions. Therefore, although the Project
Applicant and City cannot reduce GHG vehicular emissions, the Project is consistent with the
CAPCOA guidance for mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use
development projects.
In addition, the Project incorporates various sustainable design features that would reduce GHG
emissions, which include:
• A minimum of 94 electric vehicle charging stations.
• Installation of drought -tolerant plants for landscaping.
• Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems, such as weather -based and soil -moisture -
based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California
Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• Designing buildings to provide CALGreen Standards with Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design features for potential certification and would employ energy and
water conservation measures in accordance with such standards. This includes design
considerations related to the building envelope; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning;
lighting; and power systems.
• Installation of landscaping in surface parking lots to reduce heat island effect. Trees would
be selected and placed to provide canopy and shade for the parking lots.
• Implementation of a recycling program in order to meet a 75 percent minimum waste
diversion goal.
• Utilization of construction materials and interior finish products with zero or low emissions
to improve indoor air quality.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use
CEQA Findinqs of Fact
• Provision of adequate ventilation and high -efficiency in -duct filtration system.
• Use of low volatile organic compound paints and wallpapers.
Also, nonresidential buildings built with the 2019 Title 24/CalGreen standards are estimated to
use approximately 30 percent less energy and residential buildings are estimated to use
approximately 7 percent less energy compared to development under the 2016 standards. The
reduction of energy use results in reduced GHG emissions. Compliance with Title 24 is enforced
through the building permit process. The following Title 24 standards are applicable to the
proposed Project and would reduce GHG emissions:
• Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor
traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors'
entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking
capacity, with a minimum of one two -bike capacity rack.
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with 10 or more tenant -occupants, provide
secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant -occupied motorized vehicle parking
capacity, with a minimum of one space.
• Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any
combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient and carpool van pool vehicles.
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building
and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials
for recycling.
• Construction waste. A minimum 65 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste
from landfills.
• Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by either
installing water -conserving fixtures or using non -potable water systems.
• Water use savings. 20 percent mandatory reduction of indoor water use.
• Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 sf or buildings
projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day.
• Irrigation efficiency. Moisture -sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas.
• Materials pollution control. Utilize low pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as
paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard.
• Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air
conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 sf to ensure
that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies.
However, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, and
approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources
(vehicle trips). Thus, neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Santa Ana) can
substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. The Project would
result in a net increase in GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year, which would be 4.10
City of Santa Ana 51
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
MTCO2e annually per service population. This would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City CAP threshold of 3.16
MTCO2e per service population. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-14).
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project consists of an infill redevelopment project that
would help to meet housing demands from projected growth in the region while helping to
improve the jobs to housing balance (detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing),
which has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. The
proposed Project provides for pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks that connect to off -site
sidewalks to promote non -vehicular transportation and reduce the vehicle miles traveled and
related GHG emissions. In addition, the Project site is adjacent to existing bus routes and bicycle
lanes. Providing a mixed -use development in such a location is consistent with the intent of the AB
32 Scoping Plan and SB 375, which is focused on changing land use patterns and improving
transportation alternatives.
The proposed Project would be implemented pursuant to the 2019 CALGreen Building/Title 24
requirements, and provide new land uses in a sustainable manner. The City's administration of the
Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the
permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In complying with the 2019 Title
24 standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions.
Also, the CARB Scoping Plans recommend strategies for implementation at the statewide level to
meet the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. The proposed Project would be consistent with the
applicable measures established in the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan, as shown in Draft EIR Table
5.6-4, page 5.6-14, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update
reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-
30-15 and codified by SB 32. Draft EIR Table 5.6-5, page 5.6-15, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions summarizes the Project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, which shows that the
Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
The City of Santa Ana's CAP includes reduction measures that would help the City achieve its
emissions reduction goal, which is consistent with the statewide goals identified. The proposed
Project is consistent with City's CAP strategy of locating new mixed -use development within
employment corridors to create a more optimal mix of land uses and reduce vehicle miles
traveled. The proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant measures of the City's CAP
as described in Draft EIR Table 5.6-6, page 5.6-19, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
However, as described previously, the GHG emissions from the Project would exceed the
SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City
CAP threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population.
As described previously, approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated
by vehicle trips. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or
City of Santa Ana 52
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would result in an
exceedance of the CAP's emissions target and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
R. Transportation
Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR at p.
5.14-10).
Facts in Support of Findings:
In the Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions the Project would result in a significant cumulative
impact at the following three intersections, as detailed in Final EIR Transportation Section Table
5.14-10:
• Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#A) in the p.m. peak hour
• Red Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway (#30) in the p.m. peak hour
• Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) in the p.m. peak hour
Improvements for impacted intersections have been identified, which would reduce the impacts to a
less than significant level. However, improvements at the intersections of Red Hill Avenue/ Barranca
Parkway (#30) and Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) cannot be guaranteed because they require
approval and/or implementation by the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine. In addition, the improvement at
the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) is required as a result of a is a cumulative impact, as the
intersection operates with unsatisfactory LOS in the baseline 2040 condition. The Project would be
responsible for a fair share of the improvement; however, there is no currently planned improvement at the
location, and it is unknown if the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue improvement would be implemented by
2040. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact under
the Year 2040 Plus Project condition at these three intersections.
City of Santa Ana 53
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION V
RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any significant
irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented." Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes
if one of the following scenarios is involved:
• The Project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.
• Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project.
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project results in the
wasteful use of energy).
The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes:
• Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with light industrial uses would be
committed to multi -family residential and commercial retail 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 (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics).
o Increased traffic on area roadways (Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation).
o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (Draft
EIR Section 5.2, 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 (Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy).
o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from
the Project (Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise).
• Construction of the proposed Project as described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, 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, as demonstrated in the analyses contained
in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy, the proposed 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, as listed in Draft EIR Sections 3.0, Project Description and 5.4, Energy,
the proposed Project includes project design features that result in additional energy -efficiency.
City of Santa Ana 54
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION VI
RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growth -inducing
impact of the Project. EIR Section 5.17 evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to affect
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Employment Related Growth
The Project site has been used Ricoh Electronics Inc. for light industrial uses that provide
employment since its development in 1979 and 1981. The site was vacated by Ricoh in 2018 and
the buildings are partially re -occupied and used for storage, electronics recycling, and as
temporary housing for the homeless.
The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site to provide 1,150 multi -family residential
units and 80,000 square feet of commercial retail space. As detailed in Section 5.11, Population
and Housing, this is anticipated to generate approximately 320 employees at full occupancy,
which would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and therefore,
would not result in induced unplanned employment growth.
Infrastructure Obstacles to Growth
The proposed Project would redevelop the existing onsite infrastructure systems and provide an
off -site sewer line improvement that would connect to the existing off -site systems that currently
serve the Project site. The new infrastructure would not provide additional capacity beyond what
is needed to serve the proposed Project. In addition, because the Project is within a developed
area that is receiving services from existing infrastructure and would connect to the existing
infrastructure, development of the proposed Project would not result in an expansion of overall
capacity, extension of infrastructure, or provision of services in areas or an unserved area.
Therefore, infrastructure improvements would not result in significant growth inducing impacts.
Land Development Regulation Obstacles to Growth
The proposed Project includes amendments to the General Plan and to the zoning code to allow
for the redevelopment of the site to provide the proposed mixed -use development as opposed to
the existing light industrial building uses. The Project proposes a General Plan land use
designation amendment from PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center,
which would allow specific development requirements for the proposed mixed uses. In addition,
the Project includes a proposed zoning change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific
Development designation, which would also provide specific development regulations for the
mixed -use Project.
The proposed Project is redevelopment of an already developed area that has been used for
urban uses since 1979 and is surrounded by urban development or areas planned for urban
development. The proposed Project would involve a change to development regulations and
would result in onsite residents and additional onsite employees. However, the zoning and land
use changes are parcel specific and would not result in growth outside of the Project site, because
the areas are either completely developed or within development land use plans. Changes to the
Project site's land use and zoning designations would not result in removing an obstacle to growth
within the Project vicinity.
City of Santa Ana 55
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
In addition, SCAG policies concerning regional growth -inducement are included as part of Draft
EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing. As
described in those sections, the growth anticipated by SCAG's projections are consistent with the
increases in population (2,081 residents) and employees (320 employees) anticipated at full
capacity of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to growth from changes in existing regulations
pertaining to land development would be less than significant.
Public Service Obstacles to Growth
The proposed Project is expected to incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and
emergency response, police protection, and school services. However, as described in Draft EIR
Section 5.12, Public Services, the proposed Project would not require development of additional
facilities or expansion of existing facilities to maintain existing levels of service. Based on service
ratios and build out projections, the proposed Project would not create a demand for services
beyond the capacity of existing facilities. Therefore, an indirect growth inducing impact as a
result of expanded or new public facilities that could support other development in addition to the
proposed Project would not occur. The proposed Project would not have significant growth
inducing consequences that would require the need to expand public services to maintain desired
levels of service.
Other Activities Related to Growth
The proposed Project involves amendments to the City of Santa Ana General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, but those amendments are specific to the allowable land uses on the Project site itself.
The proposed Project does not propose changes to any of the City's building safety standards
(i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply
with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition, Project features and
mitigation measures have been identified within this EIR to ensure that the Project minimizes
environmental impacts. The Project would not involve any precedent -setting action that could
encourage and facilitate other activities that significantly affect the environment.
Impacts of Growth
All physical environmental effects from construction of development of the proposed Project has
been analyzed in the Draft EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and
construction as required for the proposed mixed uses were analyzed in the Draft EIR Sections 5.2,
Air Quality, 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.10, Noise. Therefore, construction of the
proposed Project has been analyzed in the EIR and would be adequately mitigated either
through implementation of existing regulations and/or mitigation measures.
City of Santa Ana 56
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION VII
RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the
alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the
location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not
required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must
consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required
to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project
analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by
CEQA.
Objectives
The following objectives have been identified in order to aid decision makers in their review of
the proposed Project and its associated environmental impacts.
• Develop a mixed -use Project that constructs new multi -family residential units, which would
help meet the region's demand for housing.
• Transform an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with
other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business
Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving retail near
employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit.
• Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water,
sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian
and bicycle) circulation.
• Develop a mix of housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance.
• Provide onsite uses that reduce vehicular miles traveled (VMT) by providing an internal
pedestrian circulation system that links residential uses, recreation areas, and
retail/commercial areas onsite.
• Implement the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional
housing near employment centers.
Alternatives
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section
15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that
are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project,
City of Santa Ana 57
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project
objectives or would be more -costly.
• The "No Project" alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The "No Project"
analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore,
the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The
alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the Project.
• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained
and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives
The alternatives must include a no -project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to
the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while
substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives
discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason," which the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
... set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
The alternatives shall be 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. The range of feasible
alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful
public participation and informed decision -making.
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives
(as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([]]) are environmental impacts,
site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other
plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could
reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not
consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose
implementation is remote or speculative.
For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to
which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects
of the Project.
Alternatives Analysis
The goal for evaluating any alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant
environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Project, while attaining most
of the Project objectives. The City of Santa Ana has included the following 3 alternatives for
consideration:
City of Santa Ana 58
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
• No Project/No Build Alternative
• Reduced Project Alternative
• Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative
Alternatives Not Selected for Analysis
Alternative Site: An alternative site was considered and 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 proponent.
The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is underutilized
in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel
and implement new multi -family housing near employment, provide development consistent with
other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC 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 1,150 multi -family
residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial uses on another 14.58-acre site at a
different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation,
and have similar impacts as the proposed 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 proposed Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and
operate the Project on an alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the
Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration.
Description of Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR 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 with three existing buildings with a total 212,121 square feet. The
Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban area, near freeways
and transit, and contains three existing useable structures. Therefore, it is not reasonable to
assume that the Project site would remain underutilized in the long-term. Thus, in the No
Project/No Build condition it is reasonably expected that all of the 212,121 square feet of
industrial building space would be re -occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the
proposed Project with re -occupation at full capacity of the three existing industrial buildings
Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative
Under this alternative, a reduction in the number of residential units and commercial square
footage would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights.
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Pursuant to discussion with City planning staff, it was determined that a reasonable decrease in
developed on the Project site is 30 percent of each unit type and a 30 percent reduction in
commercial retail space resulting in 345 fewer residential units and 24,000 square feet less of
commercial space. Like the proposed Project, 17 percent of the units would be studios, 52 percent
would be one -bedroom units, and 29 percent would be 2-bedroom units. This alternative would
develop and operate 805 multi -family residential units and 56,000 square feet of retail and
restaurant commercial uses.
Reducing these units from the proposed Project would eliminate 100 units from each of the three
proposed mixed use buildings and 45 units from the residential only building, which would reduce
the height of the three six -story mixed use buildings by two stories and reduce the height of the
one five -story building by one story. Thus, each of the mixed -use and residential buildings would
be four -stories in height under the Reduced Project Alternative.
To support the reduced Project under this alternative parking spaces would be provided at the
some rate as the proposed Project of 1.7 spaces per residential unit and 5 spaces per 1,000
square feet of commercial space within a two four -level parking structures and two five -level
parking structures, which would each be two levels lower than the proposed Project. The 24,000
square foot reduction in commercial space would occur from reducing the Phase 1 commercial
square footage from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet and from reducing the Phase 3
commercial square footage from 20,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet.
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30
percent; thus, approximately 122,189 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and
approximately 5,606 square feet of indoor amenities would be provided by this alternative.
Like the proposed 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 M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) designation
Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative
The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Professional and Administrative
Office (PAO) with a designated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and is zoned Light Industrial (M-1).
Under this alternative, the Project site would be redeveloped for a new light industrial business
park as allowed by the existing General Plan Land Use designation and the City's Zoning Code
Sections 41-472 through 41-483. The Project site has a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-
1), which permits uses such as: warehousing, distribution, manufacture, assembly, and storage. The
M-1 zone allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height.
At the allowable 0.5 FAR, the 14.58-acre site would provide for approximately 317,552 square
feet of light industrial building space and building heights of up to 35-feet. These buildings would
require approximately 635 parking spaces (per Municipal Code Section 41-1390 requirement of
2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The industrial buildings would be surrounded by drought
tolerant ornamental landscaping.
Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and
replaced to provide new building structures 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.
City of Santa Ana 60
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative 1 — No Project/No Build Alternative
The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality,
greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts that would occur from the Project and all of the
potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and mitigation
measures would not be required, which include measures related to hazards and hazardous
materials, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. 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 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.
The No Project No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. The site would
not be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's demand for housing, would not
provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific
Plan and IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance,
would not provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies
related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative would
not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Project
Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative is infeasible based
on several economic and social factors. The site would not be redeveloped to provide
development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and
IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, would not
provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to
providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, the No Project/No Build
Alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives (Draft El at p. 6-12) and is rejected on
that basis.
Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in 3,955 fewer daily vehicular trips than the
proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular emissions and consumer products from this alternative
would reduce operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant
and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would continue
to occur from implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for
implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be required for the Reduced Project
Alternative to reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural
resources to a less than significant level. Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by
the Reduced Project Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Reduced Project
Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed
Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would
result in a reduced beneficial impact. Providing fewer multi -family units and less commercial
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
space on the Project site would result in fewer opportunities to improve the jobs -housing balance
as fewer residents would have the potential to travel to local employment opportunities.
The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as
the proposed Project. The site would be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's
demand for housing, would provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment
in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC. However, fewer residential units and less commercial
space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance and VMT
would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG RTP/SCS
policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative
would meet the objectives of the proposed Project, but not to the some extent as the proposed
Project.
Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible based
several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the City is to develop housing to
assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would be less under this alternative than
the proposed Project. Under the Reduced Project Alternative fewer residential units and less
commercial space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance
and VMT would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG
RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. In addition,
the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts
of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative
would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, would
continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, and would continue to require mitigation.
The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected on that basis.
Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative
The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in 9,559 fewer daily
vehicular trips than the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular trips from this alternative
would reduce the proposed Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality emissions
and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant and
unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would continue to occur from
implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for hazards and
hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources for the proposed Project would continue to be
required for the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative.
Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build Out of the Existing Land Use
and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Build Out of the Existing Land
Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of
the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Build Out of the
Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial impact, as it would
not provide multi -family units on the Project site; and therefore, would not improve the jobs -
housing balance.
The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would only meet one Project
objective, to redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including:
water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian
and bicycle) circulation. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing
employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the
City of Santa Ana oL
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an
improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use
objectives.
Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning
Alternative is infeasible based several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the
City is to develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would not
occur under this alternative. In addition, this alternative would not provide a development
consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, it would not provide an improvement to
VMT, and it would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing
near employment centers. Thus, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative
would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The Build
Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is rejected on that basis.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a
proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No
Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another
environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.
The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would reduce the Project's
significant and unavoidable operational air quality and transportation/traffic impacts to a less
than significant level, would implement the existing General Plan land use and zoning
designations for the Project site, and would not require a General Plan amendment or zoning
change.
However, this alternative would continue to require mitigation related to contaminated soils onsite
and tribal cultural resources; and would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts
related to GHG emissions. Therefore, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build
Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the
Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. In
addition, it would not implement the SCAG policies to the same degree as the proposed Project,
because this alternative would not locate new housing near existing jobs and reduce the jobs -
housing ratio or the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
In addition, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not meet many of
the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing
employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the
redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an
improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use
objectives.
CEQA does not require the City of Santa Ana to choose the environmentally superior alternative.
Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those
considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that
the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. Based on the considerations described
City of Santa Ana 63
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
herein, the City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning
Alternative is infeasible based on these economic and social factors.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
Vill. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification
of the EIR for The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use 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 which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation
measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires
the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In
making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits 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 of a proposal (sic) project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations
shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable
effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or
other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable
adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures
with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project,
none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed
Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.
The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the EIR for the
Warner Redhill Mixed -Use 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.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad
Overriding Considerations
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above
may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is
sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and
CEQA Guideline Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
benefits of the Project are as follows:
• The Project implements capital investment through construction of new buildings and offsite
infrastructure improvements to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to
the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan.
• The Project improves the jobs -housing balance, providing a beneficial effect of providing
multi -family housing in a jobs -rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment
opportunities.
• The Project results in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic
congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with potential uses under
the existing land use designation through the provision of housing and building space for
commercial and restaurant uses near existing office uses and other sources of employment,
and by improving the jobs -housing balance.
• The Project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in
economic activities and employment increases.
• The Project transforms an underutilized site with an economically viable development
consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine
Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving commercial
uses near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit.
• The Project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing
additional housing near employment centers.
• Consistent with the General Plan and City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan, the Project
facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment
base by creating building space for multiple businesses, providing new diverse
employment opportunities and attracting new businesses by locating residences, which will
house future costumers for the businesses.
• The Project will redevelop a site that has buildings and improvements that are tailored to
a specific tenant which no longer needs the site or buildings. The existing buildings and
improvements would have limited demand in the current condition and would not result in
the benefits of the capital investment the Project will bring.
• The Economic and Fiscal Analysis (2019) prepared for the Project determined that due to
greater construction costs and scale, the estimated one-time construction economic impacts
the Project ($498 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than the impact of the
construction of a typical industrial building allowed under the current land use and zoning
($76 million). This is particularly important during this COVID-19 pandemic when
significant economic impacts are severely impacting cities, businesses and jobs.
City of San
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
• The Economic and Fiscal Analysis determined that the Project could generate more than
double the estimated net annual revenue to the City compared with a typical industrial
building allowed under the current land use and zoning.
• The Project creates a high quality, master planned mixed -use development that will
attract an array of businesses and provide a variety of employment and housing
opportunities and creates a larger annual net fiscal surplus compared to build out of the
existing Land Use and Zoning designations.
City of Santa Ana 67
May 2020
The WamerRedhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
SECTION IX
RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the
proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with
CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
City.
The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information 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.
The City of Santa Ana certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings,
including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions:
Findings•
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require
mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: air quality (Project -related and cumulative), greenhouse gas (cumulative), and
transportation (cumulative).
Conclusions
1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to air quality, greenhouse gas, and
transportation, all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
2. Other alternatives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic
objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the
proposed Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives
to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into
the proposed Project.
City of Santa Ana 68
May 2020
The WamerRedhill Mixed -Use
SECTION X
CEQA Findings of Fact
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of
any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use
SECTION XI
CEQA Findinqs of Fact
RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian
for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public
Resources Code section 21081.6.
The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project consists of the following
documents, at a minimum:
1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
2. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment
periods on the Draft EIR;
3. The Final EIR for the Mixed -Use Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, and technical appendices;
4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project;
5. All findings, resolutions and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the Mixed -
Use Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
6. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating
to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee
agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with
respect to the City's action on the Mixed -Use Project;
7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the Mixed -Use Project up though Project approval. Matters of common
knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations;
8. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code
section 21 167.6, subdivision (e).
The following location is where review of the record may be performed:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
City of Sur
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Santa Ana
May 2020
The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Chapter A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
4.1 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 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project (Project). The City of
Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the 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.
4.2 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 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project. The table identifies the Standard Conditions; Plan,
Program, Policies (PPPs); and mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant
adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the
responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance.
The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for
monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan,
Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the
MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.
City of Santa Ana 4-1
Final EIR
April 2020 (Revised May 5, 2020)
The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project 4. Mitigation Mon toring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Santa Ana 4.2
Final EIR
April 2020
�
E
!}!
\�
}}\
\\\
\.
r
*60
`
\\\
)}\
}\\
\�
/
\ir
\\
00
00
k
) §
0
3
m:
0
19
/
\\
.
\Cy)\
/\
/�!
0>;«aa
_
2
Ett:
kk�
{
§J;kr
m«!}f
!)k!
\ \\
�;
0.5=
§)
\0CY <
.2 n
_
.
2(§/
2§]
{I)
]$|j£)�
B§\
��
})/\\§\j\
2(
//\!{\§)
§
2
( #
%7f
t� !
i\
it 0
f6
�;;)
0
_
k!
fi/Zid|aZ
z
K:E9>>
;f!
k
H.
I
t
E
0
m
`v =
a •�
E c
V
N
O
\
t11
T
O1
O)
O c
m p
m p
m p
m p
v=Qo
o 22
o;!2
o'er
p:N
N
C 7_
Q
C>
Q
G j
Q
L>
Q
O V
Q
O
D
in C >
Cd N
O N
O N
O N
O N
C
T
T
T
T
U
V
U
V
0 o
a o
0 o
c o
13
c o E
� o •E
� o •E
� o
c°
- c°- o
o c°-
2 ° jer
' °0
2 °o
' •u
au
u a
u°
u° a
u a
c y
c y
c y
c y
o o= '> o a
0 a c '^ v o f r
o
t
a .E o
5 w
p a
E m C C b
°• N
a O
2
"ca
O 2
°N
NJ
0 0y
O
NmU
O O
E J
c 6JN%O
y
'^ O
p
t« a> a 'a
6 N h 6 6
v 0 c
0 6
-y c a '; -a = Q
C
C
„ m 'p p p p
0
rn
E°
p
a o c
°
O N a
u v °
C
o c o
o
o`vnCi
. a
F
Uv o u o a
rn
Q o
° vu
o
N°¢ ac
o
U •' V` E
'�
v ° rn a °
o '- o o°
a
m
v o 0 °„of
o
O U
-
N °o
o -0«
w
oM Qpy
•0
wOu u
0'>cy1-4
O cW -
0
C so E o
x
o o°
T d
N
« •c i S O -p
C
V N 9 a¢ °- 6
T u° D o E .E Y
N
1
•O O m w .�
Q
'O a C a) _a p«
N
mu
•
so«
O %oy
ea• c
Lryn
42
O
O2
ao u
aaO_:O
uU:-
.
v >Z
v
m a
d°c
o•p
°t
a
i
°
G°
t `o_ rn
o
v
t9
v' v o
v v F L
L
•O
c 5 'E
Q
c
c N M d
6` N X O y J c
"� 2 d o
a1
c
a
p
J u o v
N
2 0 .L- v c
c E v Y
�
a rc
rn
S
v-�^
fI m
u
o$ :m
o°Ow
17
E
c
U
w
0
0
0
c
v �
C V
O c
o
-E w
o E
a -D
0
- v
0
N N
-O L
_ y
L 0 N o
0
c
6 p
O L
N v
C M
0 c
V °
H 0
a o
O
E u
E 0
T c O 0 0 O
O c
c
c CE
N
> o
oo'
m
d w `E
oo�
0 E>
d
V m
a
0
E
O J
O
E N v
v_ a E
y 0
>
o a
o Et
N« O
E
d
^ _
0 N
v
E c
E u
N
n
N_ o
M
w E
s c
y
$
N N O
a'0
m
+
N 6
o
v
o
c
o
c
m o E
w°
c
u
`u >
NO O
L.N E
o
3'v
a
ow
d 0°
t
E E 0 O
v° °
v
`0 0 o a
V O a
u�Ji
d N N
Q S E
d
W N Z O
o f= C C O C O
E a v «
y N S E U m
E 0 0 c
o E o
tO W t O c E
•� o'o « o ° a
u E N + c 3
o•
C ti O 0
c a� p
V S O« c J°
N E E
a-
0 c u 9 a w N=_
0 O p N
0 _ c
+oc E0«° vO°°lJ v
E c o 0LEN
o u
E0
`v v
0 m °u `o- o U a s
a_0o0dod
N� wwm.
s
d L 0 E u
N N E . 0 a
N c 0 a
T a u a 0 f E a a
Q O Oc am uJi 0 m 'O E
t r N O
`o j = v a
L 0
V S O
"E ii O
K
m
aL O =
a 0 0 0 SJ
N y � 0'
W L O O m
N 9 N a a
O
Tw � 0
d
0
c
d u0 N 13
'N n
o E
w o a 0 E O
° c a 0 m
m
o a 0 'o v
0 O N O
Q : o E
4'
Me
E
:7
!\}
0
0—
kk
k\\)
\
\\
umu
�U�
!(j])
|f{|if
.6
`\
®0
t0
:
�.
_
+
2,
r)®2§|\
}■!
tL
{«�,
EJ
B§
)ƒ\{/
{,
k)
)
/ |�
{
>
0{
k
§
��
}\
§\
(\(
{\
�k}
"
-
,U00
\
0}\ r_\/}�0
a
\Z
)}z
�\
)f;(
`
§
�®
k�
}�!
®
>s
[
!(§
\|\
{!.
![!�°`
%{!(7
!tL
)(�-)ff
ik[\$/
7�
:
z!!!a,®
=
!
§}\k\o
77<0
=
—���%
a
2iI*�!{
\fk\%[{
,(
�i{�J:S
}
!,
.
_
_
J{§§\(}
==;k)�)!
,_
)
m
E5.z0!
`§
_-
;.
\\}\\\\\
®
j
k}}
§
,
a
y
R
E
a
v
w =
a a
E'c
U
W
0
G
� �
T
m
O
C O O
L O B
c a
p
E'o
v
a y N
'�
O V '=
N
`c j N
a'
c 5 h
° >
`c
j3
a
wC d
->
•D
W
C
a d Ot
y% C
a 0 M
W C
N 0
aG
'O
o 0 "a
o 0 "6
0 0
c
M
Up
(jO
Up
0
0 o
O c
a p�
0
`o_
y
LF
E
v T 7
y T 7
t' «y
R
O u
O
O N O O
y
d °
°- 0
C
0
0 7
M s.- O c c f O
G d +
« a 0 "' N F y° 0 Q
a
v
o oy°
`
am
o
N
ov
Ec
o
o d
cv
m o r i€ ou 02
O
0
o
C
N
0E
O
a' « O a� a
O
0
N
U O. ° c
C y a 6 °
O T o. v -p x>
'C 6 W O O> a O
a
•a
p° c c 0a'.
d C G T
o
o r O O a s N
.-
v "6 a
o y O « p
C a a a O
2 4
N a W D✓ E c p
O� a O
« F O N\
t U F •r t a
V 0 .��- t
C '-' = a
N T N
f
3 o N o
Y w c o
a o
oa
ocO,
m o
' v
Q
°am5
v
°
O
v
a
N
Q a -a a
0p0
v
cO°
c— v
>
0 E
a
c. U v >
O o
> y c
�6°c
i«m_a�uii
a
ia
t N N
N
N0 ZsYo
vMO
O
z°
cooeu
u«
•.sZ
•�a"`°va
o f
ed
> '"
y
�3 O a
>
c0>"Y'1-9
•oO X >
o
ad o
a a o
O
U
a
c u>
O
d
C E
Z a v
p
K
d° j
c
w
`
w
n t -a
v
o a o a v ti
o '� a
v c rn i=„ v rn
N o
N a d f 2 G
1 v y •i `O y
v
V
N T¢ a
a s «� O
a Q c 0 O. N
7
p
c
C
E
U
o rn m y c „- p o
v 'o
a°
a
v 2
f�� `o aa�t'-
FQd o °u o
J.
§
}
�(k( {k\|\k}k[§)){5�5/
{;/i!]\\_§ 7 k\)!\�)k
___ }\gof�<E!7%`
�I!!;« _
k:lk#�/k(-�j \ - -- -
!l�m3`E|D{! -®±m-0 ji ] /0 0
)0'5: !I�> #!§MOzr ![2*2}{§
B,;!°t§!r» \/!!<2l0 ,
2)B,«>;§!,s! __`2*2!|`�?®k{f$
=(f{}�_- _ 2 \\fE�§,]!®)2
}}/\}D0 \��0\\\\}\�}}�}\\
a `0. Ek)k¥J_-
-2 2i>!■a` !l2�,J��=`«`V®72,
�§+I$B§)]!k!*/®{|)
C§f®»;!§:Ba;,`,■
!�
Jƒ/)){ - f`!]\la;�a|!!)!`.
„ 71277](|§!/*;fNj
_!,�»B al••��� 0_.l,�
;»§§!§sig|ƒf§>zU«!!§!«)®;;,�_
l0z2<&.
k
EXHIBIT C
EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development"
2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue
The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at:
httos //www santa ana ore/pb/planning-division/maiar-planning-projects-and-monthly-development-
Pro i ect-reports/bowery
Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact
PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at:
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Exhibit C to Exhibit 2 — Link to EIR