HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - STAFF REPORT2 - 1
2 - 2
2 - 3
2 - 4
2 - 5
2 - 6
2 - 7
2 - 8
2 - 9
2 - 10
2 - 11
2 - 12
EXHIBIT 1
2 - 13
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1
LS 11.9.20
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087),
(2) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (3) ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
(4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
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, the City of Santa Ana seeks to approve the City of Santa Ana
General Plan Update (“proposed project”); and
WHEREAS, the project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1)
adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan Update; (2) Certification of a Program
Environmental Impact Report (the “PEIR”); (3) Adoption of Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (5) Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions,
or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project has been submitted and requires review and
certification of the PEIR (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2020029087) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03) and the adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan Update;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city of Orange and
unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the
cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and
Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island,
a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the
west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within
2 - 14
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2
its sphere of influence (SOI); 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 a program EIR was clearly required for the project,
and therefore did not prepare an initial study; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that a program 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: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and
Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and 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
February 26, 2020, 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 in the City of Santa Ana—stating that an environmental impact report (SCH No. 2020029087) 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 Thursday, March 5, 2020, to solicit comments on the scope of the
environmental review of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, 18 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, a Draft PEIR was prepared for the proposed project addressing
comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed project’s
potentially significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the project that pertain to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Noise, and Population and Housing. Air Quality impacts stem from
inconsistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) air
quality management plan (AQMP) and exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s
significance thresholds that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), and would result in long-term
emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and again
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Cultural
Resources impacts result from significant impacts to historical resources that may be
2 - 15
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3
considered unavoidable and therefore significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from the inability to meet the year 2050 GHG reduction goal set by California
Executive Order S-03-05. Noise impacts result from a substantial increase in noise
levels above ambient conditions due to construction noise and project-generated traffic
noise for existing residences along affected roadways. Lastly, population impacts stem from population and housing growth at buildout being larger than Orange County
Council of Government’s 2045 population and housing projections; and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR further determines that mitigation measures are
required to address impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems; 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
February 26, 2020; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City
provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR to the public—and published the
Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register—at the same time that the City
sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research on August 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft PEIR 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, Planning Commission work-
study sessions were held on August 24, 2020 and September 14, 2020 where staff
presented the proposed project and described the Draft PEIR; and
WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft
PEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period, from August 3, 2020, to September 16, 2020; and was extended for review 20 days thereafter to October 6, 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
WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA environmental review
requirements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, on October
30, 2020, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and
interested organizations and parties more than 10 days prior to the City’s consideration
of the Final PEIR; and
2 - 16
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2020, the City released the Final PEIR, attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”, which consists of the Draft PEIR, all technical appendices
prepared in support of the Draft PEIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft
PEIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments
received on the Draft PEIR, revisions to the Draft PEIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the PEIR and the General Plan Update, and the
associated EIR and GPA applications. 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 PEIR; adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program; and approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council
public hearing for consideration of the PEIR No. 2020-03 (State Clearinghouse No.
2020029087) by publishing in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Ana, and by mailing to owners of property and residents
within 500 feet of the proposed Focus Areas, those individuals on the project interest
list, and those individuals on the PEIR Notice of Availability list; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the PEIR, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03.
After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City’s consultant team,
the City Council voted to certify the PEIR; adopt the findings of fact, the statement of
overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and
approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the “PEIR” consists of the Final PEIR, and all attachments and
appendices to the Final PEIR, as well as the Draft PEIR and its attachments and
appendices (as modified by the Final PEIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the PEIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith
to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State
CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of
the PEIR, 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 PEIR project, which
2 - 17
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5
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 PEIR, are described in Section
V of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the PEIR project’s environmental impacts
that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified
in the PEIR, are described in Section IV of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that environmental impacts that are identified
in the PEIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section III of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that
would result from the project identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described
in Section VI of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as “Exhibit B”; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the
PEIR project identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of
the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the PEIR project that might further reduce the PEIR
project’s environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of the Findings of Fact,
attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; 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 PEIR and all oral and written evidence presented
to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed
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 PEIR 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.
2 - 18
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the
PEIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the PEIR reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City, acting as lead agency for the project.
Section 3. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft
PEIR that would require recirculation of the PEIR.
Section 4. The City Council hereby:
1. Certifies the PEIR 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 “B”, after balancing the
significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, and population and housing impacts of the proposed project against the benefits of the proposed project.
3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”, consistent with Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6; makes implementation of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the
project; and finds 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.
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 working days of the City Council’s final project
approval.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption
by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote
adopting this Resolution.
ADOPTED this day of , 2020.
2 - 19
Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7
_
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By: Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers _
NOES: Councilmembers _
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify the attached Resolution
No. 2020-____ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Ana on _____________________, 2020.
Date: _____________________ _______________________________
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
2 - 20
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR THE
SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
City of Santa Ana
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a number of written findings be
made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (“EIR”)
prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines
and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of
the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified
mitigation measures and project alternatives.
EXHIBIT B
2 - 21
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it
has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.
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.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).)
The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native
Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found
infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is
supported by substantial evidence in the record’”].) An alternative may also be rejected because
it “would not ‘entirely fulfill’ [a] project objective.” (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi
(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315.) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened,
a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the
agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why
the agency found that the project's “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse
environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources
Code, § 21081, subd. (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.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
further provides:
2 - 22
(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 project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) Where 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. This 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.
Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft PEIR”) and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“Final PEIR”)
for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, SCH No. 2020029087 (collectively, the “PEIR”), as well
as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts
(“Findings”) are hereby adopted by the City of Santa Ana (“City”) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead
Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken
by the City for adoption and implementation of the Santa Ana General Plan Update (“Proposed
Project”). This action includes the certification of the following:
§ Santa Ana General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No.
2020029087
A. DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
1) Section I provides an introduction.
2) Section II provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required
for approval of the project, and a statement of the project’s objectives.
3) Section III provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area
that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a
summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project.
2 - 23
4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to
be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received
during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that
were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the proposed
project.
5) Section V sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts identified in the Draft FEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or
can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project
design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and
implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (“MMRP”) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead
Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels
through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings
specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section V also includes
findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified
in the Draft PEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined
cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level.
6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
7) Section VII sets forth the statement of overriding considerations for the proposed project.
8) Section VIII sets forth the resolution regarding certification of the PEIR
9) Section IX sets for the resolution adopting a mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed
project.
10) Section X sets for the resolution regarding custodian of records for the proposed project.
B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
§ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed
project
§ The DEIR for the proposed project
§ The FEIR for the proposed project
§ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the Draft PEIR
2 - 24
§ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the Draft PEIR
§ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the
proposed project
§ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
§ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments
§ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR
§ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the proposed project,
and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto
§ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Santa Ana, including but not limited to federal,
state, and local laws and regulations
§ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings
§ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e)
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian
for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section
15091(e).
C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions
related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20,
Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City’s Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record
for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and
at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning
Division Counter. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).
2 - 25
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. PROJECT LOCATION
Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest
of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of Newport Beach. Orange County is surrounded
by the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego and is one of six
counties comprising the Southern California Region.
Santa Ana is bordered by Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, Tustin
to the east, Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the
west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the
northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east,
17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of
the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel in its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are
defined and referred to herein as the plan area.
Regional access to the city is provided by the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and the Orange
Freeway (SR-57) on the north, the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) on the northeast, the Costa Mesa
Freeway (SR-55) on the east, and the San Diego Freeway (l-405) on the south.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In March 2014, the City Council adopted the Santa Ana Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan was
the result of an extensive community outreach process and established specific goals, objectives,
and strategies to guide the City’s major efforts. One of the key strategies identified was to
complete a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU)
will provide long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic
health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045. The General Plan Update
will identify areas of opportunity and provide options to enhance development potential in key
areas of the city. It will also bring the city into compliance with recent State laws, reflect current
conditions, and incorporate input from the general public, City staff, and other stakeholders.
The proposed GPU is organized into three sections: I, Services and Infrastructure; II, Natural
Environment; and III, Built Environment. The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required
by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to
incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across
multiple elements of the general plan. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace the 16
elements of the current General Plan. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014–2021 housing
element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as
a separate effort in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will
be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements.
The 12 elements of the proposed General Plan update are:
2 - 26
Mandatory Topics Optional Topics
§ Land Use Element
§ Circulation Element
§ Housing Element
§ Open Space Element
§ Conservation Element
§ Safety Element
§ Noise Element
§ Public Services Element
§ Urban Design Element
§ Community Element
§ Economic Prosperity Element
§ Historic Preservation Element
The proposed GPU is comprehensive both in its geography and subject matter. It addresses the
entire territory within the plan area’s boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with
management of the plan area. The GPU also includes forecasts of long-term conditions and
outlines development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles,
standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. The GPU can be found online at
https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan. The General Plan Policy Framework can be accessed
at
https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general-
plan/documents/GeneralPlanPolicyFrameworkMaster.DRAFT.cmo2.pdf
Coordination and consistency are essential between the elements of the GPU, but in particular
with the land use element. The circulation element, which identifies proposed improvements to
the transportation system, may impact surrounding land uses and future development. The urban
design element sets forth policies and programs to improve the city’s design and urban form. The
conservation element protects and maintains the city’s natural, cultural, and other resources, with
a focus on preserving aesthetics and the environmental quality of the city.
Both the land use element and the circulation element are described in more depth below. Focus
areas and specific plan/special zoning areas are also described.
Updated Land Use Element
The updated land use element will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development,
redevelopment, use, and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses
as shown in the proposed land use map. Figure 3-7 of the Draft PEIR shows the 13 proposed
land use designations of the General Plan update, and Table 3-4 of the Draft PEIR gives a general
description of the land use designations that are added to the GPU and were not in the current
General Plan. Land use designations define the type and nature of development that would be
allowed in a given location of the plan area. The land use designations and patterns are intended
to provide the basis for more detailed zoning designations and development intensities,
requirements, and standards established in the City’s development code.
It is important to note that the updated land use element is a regulatory document that defines the
framework for future growth and development in the plan area but does not directly result in
development in and of itself. Before any project can be developed in the plan area, it must be
2 - 27
analyzed for conformance with the General Plan Update, zoning requirements, and other
applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all
necessary clearances and permits.
Updated Mobility (Circulation) Element
The Mobility Element update is integrally related to federal, state, and regional transportation
programs as well as local plans and regulations. The City’s role in transportation planning has
become increasingly important because recent legislation in the areas of growth management,
congestion management, and air quality require more active local coordination to meet regional
objectives. Furthermore, the Mobility Element update is intended to guide future development of
the city’s transportation system in a manner consistent with the updated land use element.
The Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) details proposed street classifications to reflect
buildout of the city’s roadway system. The street classifications include Freeway, Major Arterial,
Primary Arterial, Secondary Arterial, Divided Collector Arterial, and Collector Arterial. As part of
the implementation of complete streets principles,1 a series of modifications to the city’s roadway
network has been identified and includes both the reclassification of roadways and assignment of
new MPSH roadway classifications to selected existing streets.
A number of proposed roadway reclassifications, adoptions, and removals from the MPSH are as
follows:
§ Reclassified as Divided Collector Arterial:
l Santa Clara Avenue between Grand Avenue and SR-55 freeway (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Flower Street between Warner Avenue and 1st Street (currently Secondary Arterial)
l Chestnut Avenue between Standard Avenue and eastern city limit (currently
Secondary/Primary Arterial)
l Raitt Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Civic Center Drive between Fairview Street and Bristol Street (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Penn Way between I-5 on/off ramps and Washington Avenue (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Santiago Street between Washington Avenue and 6th Street (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Standard Avenue between 6th Street and Warner Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial)
1 Complete streets are transportation facilities that are planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility.
2 - 28
l Santa Ana Boulevard between French Street and Santiago Street (currently Primary
Arterial)
l Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Flower Street (currently Major Arterial)
l Cambridge Street between Fairhaven Avenue and SR-22 freeway (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Hazard Avenue between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Halladay Avenue between Warner Avenue and Dyer Road (currently Secondary Arterial)
l McFadden Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Grand Avenue (currently Secondary
Arterial)
l Broadway between 1st Street and 17th Street (currently Secondary Arterial)
l 4th Street between French Street and Grand Avenue (currently Primary/Secondary
Arterial)
l Fairhaven Avenue from Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial)
§ Reclassified as Primary Arterial:
l Santa Ana Boulevard between Flower Street and Ross Street (currently a Major Arterial)
l 1st Street between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue (currently Major Arterial)
§ Reclassify as Collector Arterial:
l Civic Center Drive between French Street and Santiago Street (currently a Secondary
Arterial)
§ Add the following to the MPSH as Divided Collector Arterial:
l Greenville Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Warner Avenue
§ Add the following to the MPSH as Collector Streets:
l Greenville Street between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue
§ Remove the following from the MPSH
l Flower Street between 17th Street and its northern terminus
l Logan Street between Civic Center Drive and Santa Ana Boulevard
The majority of the proposed reclassifications aim to reduce existing rights-of-way for vehicular
traffic lanes to make room for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Landmark streets are also
identified within or adjacent to the Santa Ana Downtown Historic District, which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
The Mobility Element update incorporates the proposed Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway project, which will introduce new transit service to the city. Santa Ana is working with
Garden Grove and Orange County Transit Authority to build a fixed guideway system called the
2 - 29
OC Streetcar. Expected to begin operations in 2022, the OC Streetcar will link the Santa Ana
Regional Transportation Center to a new multimodal hub at Harbor Boulevard/Westminster
Avenue in Garden Grove. OC Streetcar will serve historic downtown Santa Ana and Civic Center.
Along its four-mile route, OC Streetcar will connect with 18 Orange County Transit Authority bus
routes and increase transportation options along Santa Ana Boulevard, 4th Street, the Pacific
Electric right-of-way, and Harbor Boulevard.
Focus Areas
1. South Main Street Focus Area
The South Main Street focus area introduces the opportunity for greater flexibility and a more
dynamic mix of land uses and urban design along the properties fronting Main Street. The intent
is to transition an auto-dominated corridor into a transit- and pedestrian-friendly corridor through
infill development without disrupting the surrounding lower-density neighborhoods. The objectives
of this focus area are:
§ Facilitate redevelopment and property improvements along Main Street.
§ Create a more active and dynamic streetscape.
§ Protect established residential neighborhoods.
§ Support transit, pedestrian, and nonmotorized travel.
The majority of properties fronting Main Street will be designated Urban Neighborhood, allowing
for future development to include commercial uses, low- and medium-density housing, or a
combination of both in a vertically mixed-use format. South of Warner Avenue, the Industrial/Flex
designation will offer new options for small-scale manufacturing, live-work, and retail
opportunities.
The balance of the focus area will remain designated for Low Density Residential or Institutional
to reflect the existing development patterns and land uses. New buildings and spaces will be
sensitive to the surrounding low-density neighborhoods while still emphasizing the creation of
active and attractive urban spaces.
2. Grand Avenue / 17th Street Focus Area
The Grand Avenue / 17th Street focus area will foster the development of an urban mixed-use
corridor connecting into the city’s downtown and transit core. The intent is to create opportunities
for a new mix of land uses and design to transition Grand Avenue from a series of auto-oriented
shopping plazas to a series of dynamic urban spaces. The objectives of this focus area are:
§ Create mixed-use corridors and urban villages.
§ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods.
§ Foster community spaces and neighborhood-serving amenities.
§ Develop opportunities for live-work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing.
§ Maintain compatible nodes of commercial activity.
2 - 30
The majority of land in this focus area is planned for Urban Neighborhood or District Center land
use designations, which will allow a blend of residential and commercial uses to develop
simultaneously, as market conditions allow. An intense mixed-use area is envisioned adjacent to
the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center, along the east side of Grand Avenue south of I-5.
This part of the focus area will support larger, more visually dynamic buildings and urban spaces
that complement and benefit from the adjacent regional transit center.
North of I-5, the buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low-density
neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. A mix
of residential, retail, and office will be interspersed along the frontage of Grand Avenue, with a
concentrated node of commercial and mixed-use residential uses at Grand Avenue and 17th
Street. A small portion of the focus area is designated for Industrial/Flex and General Commercial
to support small-scale manufacturing, live-work, and retail opportunities will be located along 17th
Street near the Regional Transportation Center.
3. West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area
The West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area connects the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor
Specific Plan area and Downtown Santa Ana, and the OC Streetcar Project improvements will
create the physical transit link in 2022. The intent is to transition a group of auto-oriented
neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions into a series of transit-oriented neighborhoods that
support and benefit from future streetcar stops. The objectives of this focus area are:
§ Develop housing and mixed-use opportunities near streetcar stations.
§ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods.
§ Buffer industrial land uses and residential neighborhoods.
§ Create opportunities for clean industrial/maker-type spaces.
4. 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area
The 55 Freeway / Dyer Road focus area will transition from almost exclusively professional office
to a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed-use development. The intent is to create
opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit
options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The objectives of this
focus area are:
§ Provide housing opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the city’s edge.
§ Enhance opportunities for corporate offices.
§ Attract economic activity into the city from surrounding communities.
§ Protect industrial and office employment base.
§ Maintain hotel and commercial uses.
The overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary will reflect
an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. At the southeastern
edge, the District Center land use designation will facilitate large residential mixed-use
2 - 31
developments in structures that incorporate high-density housing, hotels, and complementary
expansions of commercial uses. Adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use
designation will promote large-scale office-industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and
research and development uses.
The node surrounding the freeway interchange will remain as currently planned for General
Commercial uses, with new improvements introducing development and spaces that complement
the existing examples and elements.
South Bristol Street Focus Area
The South Bristol Street focus area represents Santa Ana’s southern gateway and is a part of the
South Coast Metro area. Between Sunflower and Alton Avenues, the District Center land use
designation will create opportunities to transform auto-oriented shopping plazas to walkable, bike-
friendly, and transit-friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix of high intensity office and
residential living with experiential commercial uses. The objectives of this focus area are:
§ Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area.
§ Introduce mixed-use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are
more walkable, bike friendly, and transit oriented.
§ Provide for mixed-use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established, low-density
neighborhoods.
Between MacArthur Boulevard and Alton Avenue, the form and intensity will scale down but
remain distinctly urban in nature. The redevelopment of the auto-oriented commercial plazas will
result in the construction of landmark buildings and structures set in and around spaces
accessible to future occupants and the general public. The corridor north of Alton Avenue is
planned with the Urban Neighborhood land use designation, allowing for commercial and
residential projects, frequently in a mixed-use format, to develop in accordance with market
fluctuations. The buildings and spaces in this part of the focus area will be sensitive to the
surrounding low-density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and
attractive urban spaces.
Specific Plan/Special Zoning
There are seven planning areas that represent specific plans and other special zoning areas that
were previously adopted: Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area (2014), Bristol Street Corridor
Specific Plan (1991/2018), Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (2014), MainPlace
Specific Plan (2019), Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (2007/2018), Midtown Specific Plan
(1996), and Transit Zoning Code Specific Development (2010). The most recent
adoption/amendment date for each document is noted in parentheses.
2 - 32
Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, Section 41-1651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provides
alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible buildings, or portions thereof,
from nonresidential uses to dwelling units, guest rooms or joint living, and work quarters. Eligible
structures are buildings within the Adaptive Reuse project incentive area that were constructed in
accordance with building and zoning codes in effect prior to July 1, 1974, or which have been
determined to be a Historically Significant. The Project Incentive Area includes properties in the
Midtown Specific Plan area; the Transit Zoning Code area; the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay
Zone; the North Main Street Corridor on both sides of Main Street, from 17th Street to the
northernmost MainPlace Drive; and the East 1st Street Corridor on both sides of 1st Street from
Grand Avenue to Elk Lane. Residential uses are allowed in the Project Incentive Area irrespective
of the underlying zoning as part of an approved Adaptive Reuse Project.
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan
The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan covers the 2.5-mile segment of Harbor
Boulevard on the west side of Santa Ana. The approximately 305-acre planning area includes
parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Avenue as well as
parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Specific Plan creates the zoning necessary to take advantage of the regional and local
transit investments made along and around Harbor Boulevard. The plan expands development
options to include residential alongside or integrated into a mix of nonresidential uses.
MainPlace Specific Plan
The purpose of the MainPlace Specific Plan is to transform MainPlace Mall into a family‐oriented
retail, entertainment, and dining destination. The plan creates a mixed-use urban village with a
revitalized mall at its central core. The Specific Plan area is on the north edge of Santa Ana,
between Main Street on the east and SR-22 and I-5 to the north and west. The property is
identified in the current General Plan land use element as District Center. The District Center
designation includes the major activity areas of the city, designed to serve as anchors to the city’s
commercial corridors and to accommodate major development activity. No General Plan
amendment is required for the specific plan, and the MainPlace Specific Plan is the zoning for the
property and defines the allowable uses within its boundaries.
Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone
The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone consists of an original MEMU Overlay Zone
and an expansion component. The original MEMU Overlay Zone is largely developed with
commercial and office uses and comprises approximately 200 acres immediately east of the I-5
and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by I-5 on the west and south, Tustin Avenue on the
east, and East Sixth Street on the north. The MEMU expansion area added 33.52 acres or
approximately 48 parcels to the original MEMU Overlay Zone area. The additional project area
2 - 33
extends west primarily along First Street and is generally bounded by the I-5 to the east, Grand
Avenue to the west, East Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Fourth Street to the north.
The overall objectives of the MEMU Overlay Zone are to encourage a more active commercial
and residential community, provide an expanded economic base, maximize property sales tax
revenues, improve the jobs/housing balance within the city, and provide for a range of housing
options identified in the 2014 housing element.
Midtown Specific Plan
The Midtown Specific Plan area is generally bounded by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center
Drive to the south, North Ross Street to the west, and North Spurgeon Street to the east. The
Midtown area is readily accessible from the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5). Midtown is envisioned as
an integrated district of civic, business, cultural, and retail activity with a small residential
component.
Transit Zoning Code Specific Development
The City adopted a Transit Zoning Code to provide zoning for the integration of new infill
development into existing neighborhoods; to allow for the reuse of existing structures; to provide
for a range of housing options, including affordable housing; and to provide a transit-supportive,
pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure.
The code encompasses an area in the central urban core of Santa Ana that comprises over 100
blocks and 450 acres. The area is west of I-5 and bounded by First Street on the south, Flower
Street on the west, Grand Avenue on the east, and Civic Center Drive on the north.
General Plan Buildout Scenario
In general, many areas currently designated for General Commercial and Professional Office will
expand opportunities for residential development by a proposed change in General Plan land use
designation to Urban Neighborhood or District Center. Industrial Flex will be introduced in each
of the five focus areas and replace Industrial land use designations that currently exist to allow
for cleaner industrial and commercial uses with live-work opportunities.
Furthermore, state law allows a graduated density bonus for the inclusion of affordable housing
units For an increasing amount of affordable units (by percentage), a project is allowed an
increasing ability to exceed the permitted density (up to a cap of 35 percent). Recent updates to
state housing law (Assembly Bill 1763, effective January 1, 2020), enables projects that are 100
percent affordable (either 100 percent lower income or 80 percent lower and 20 percent limited
moderate), to obtain a density bonus of 80 percent, or no limit if within one-half mile of a major
transit stop. However, not every proposed project pursuant to the GPU would include affordable
units, and not every project that includes affordable units would need a density bonus. Proposed
projects pursuant to the GPU are not required to build at densities that exceed maximum limits;
the law only requires that jurisdictions grant the density bonus if requested. The buildout
methodology for the GPU was based on past development trends, current development trends,
2 - 34
and a forecast market analysis. These trends accounted for any units approved (density bonus
or otherwise), to determine the appropriate density and amount of development to assume.
Additionally, the optimal density of affordable units is at or below the density levels assumed for
forecasting buildout. Generally, projects beyond 50 to 70 units per acre require Type 1
construction (steel and concrete structure), which is much more expensive than Type V
construction (wood structure). Accordingly, affordable projects are rarely greater than 70 units per
acre except for very small parcels. The average densities used to calculate projected buildout at
2045 are 50 to 90 units per acre in the three most intense focus areas; 55 Freeway/Dyer Road,
Grand Avenue/17th Street, and South Bristol Street focus areas. For the remaining two focus
areas, a residential assumption at 30 units per acre was used over a broad area to account for
development at or above the maximum density of 30 units per acre. The maximum is 20 units per
acre for projects proposed exclusively residential in the South Main Focus Area. The maximum
is 30 units per acre for a relatively small part of the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area. The
City’s buildout projections are therefore considered to include and account for the application of
density bonus provisions of state law to future projects.
Furthermore, the potential for development in specific plan and special zoning areas is based on
the forecast buildout at the time of the respective zoning document’s adoption, minus the amount
of new development built between the adoption date and 2019.
Growth outside of the focus areas and special planning areas is expected to be incremental and
limited. Some growth was projected for the professional office surrounding the Orange County
Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. Some growth was
also projected for the commercial and retail area south of the West Santa Ana Boulevard focus
area. Finally, some additional residential development is expected on a small portion (5 percent)
of single-family and multifamily lots through the construction of second units.
For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent
of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation.
C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City:
§ Adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan update
§ Certification of PEIR
§ Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
§ Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
§ Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that
implement the Santa Ana General Plan update
2 - 35
D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The updated General Plan is based on a vision statement and core values established as part of
an extensive, multiyear community outreach effort. The City has identified the following core
values to guide the General Plan Update (GPU):
§ Health. The people of Santa Ana value a physical environment that encourages healthy
lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a
community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our
residents.
§ Equity. Residents value taking all necessary steps to ensure equitable outcomes, expanding
access to the tools and resources that residents need, and balancing competing interests in
an open and democratic manner.
§ Sustainability. Santa Ana values land use decisions that benefit future generations, plans for
the impacts of climate change, and incorporates sustainable design practices at all levels of
the planning process.
§ Culture. The Santa Ana’s community values efforts that celebrate our differences as a source
of strength, preserve and build upon existing cultural resources, and nurture a citywide culture
of empowered residents.
§ Education. Santa Ana values the creation of lifelong learners, the importance of opening up
educational opportunities to all residents, and investing in educational programs that advance
residents’ economic well-being.
These core values were used as the basis to define more specific project objectives to aid decision
makers in their review of the GPU and associated environmental impacts. The objectives include:
1. Promote infill development while respecting and protecting established neighborhoods.
2. Optimize high density residential and mixed-use development that maximizes potential use of
mass transit.
3. Provide locations for new housing development that maximizes affordable housing
opportunities to achieve both City and regional housing goals.
4. Facilitate new development at intensities sufficient to generate community benefits and attract
economic activity.
5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City’s edge.
6. Introduce mixed-use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are
more walkable, bike-friendly, and transit-oriented.
7. Develop opportunities for live/work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing.
2 - 36
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Santa Ana CEQA
Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project.
§ The City of Santa Ana concluded that a PEIR should be prepared, and the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from February 26, 2020,
through March 27, 2020. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s Office on
February 26, 2020. The notice was published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of
general circulation. Under CEQA, a lead agency may proceed directly with preparation of a
PEIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that a PEIR will be required (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana made such a determination for this
project and did not prepare 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 PEIR was held on March 5, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. at the
Santa Ana Police Community Room at 60 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana. The notice of a
public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on February 26, 2020.
§ Preparation of a Draft PEIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 45- day
public review period (August 3, 2020, through September 16, 2020) and extended to October
6, 2020. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR was sent to all persons, agencies,
and organizations on the list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in
Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the August 3, 2020, Orange
County Register. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s Office on August 3, 2020.
Copies of the Draft PEIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana,
Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City
of Santa Ana Public Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR
was also available for review and download on City website: https://www.santa-
ana.org/general-plan.
§ The Final PEIR contains comments on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments,
revisions to the Draft PEIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final PEIR was released
for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final PEIR.
§ After considering the PEIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa
Ana hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, 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 the City has determined that
remaining significant effects are acceptable under Section 15093.
§ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation
of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. 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.
2 - 37
§ 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 PEIR in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA.
§ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final
PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the project files; b) copy of the Final
PEIR 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.
2 - 38
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS
Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses and input at the public
scoping meeting), in addition to analysis prepared for the Draft PEIR, the City determined, based
upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than
significant impact on the following potential environmental issues (see Draft PEIR, Chapter 8,
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant). It was determined, therefore, that these potential
environmental issues would be precluded from detailed discussion in the Draft PEIR. Based upon
the environmental analysis presented in the Draft PEIR, and the comments received by the public
on the Draft PEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which
indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
(a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The City does not have any significant agricultural
resources. Additionally, Santa Ana has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and
does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Santa Ana does not have any
land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production.
(b) Wildfire: According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) in an SRA to
the City of Santa Ana is a high FHSZ about 4.0 miles east along the western edge of Loma
Ridge. The nearest FHSZ in an LRA is about 3.8 miles away at the southern tip of the Peters
Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs.
Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface.
All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to
require further assessment in the Draft PEIR.
B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE DRAFT PEIR
This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant
without implementation of project-specific mitigation measures. This determination, however,
does assume compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section
of Chapter 5 in the Draft PEIR.
(a) Aesthetics: Buildout under the GPU will be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus
areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to
existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas
would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s existing skyline. Buildout
under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the
Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain
unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse
the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic
resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic
2 - 39
highways. The GPU would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but
adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes.
(b) Biological Resources: Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and
jurisdictional waterways. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City
is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources.
(c) Cultural Resources: The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing
and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are
uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and
Safety Code Section 7050.5.
(d) Energy: Implementation of proposed policies under the GPU, in conjunction with and
complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with
growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the
GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
(e) Geology and Soils: The plan area’s location and underlying geology make it likely to
experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary
hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP
Zoning Act in the plan area. Additionally, all structures that would be constructed in
accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as
found in the latest CBC. Most of the plan area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction;
however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with
current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with
respect to slope stability, as the plan area is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils
conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory
compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP
and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant
level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and
requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is
generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable
groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that
impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require
connection to the City’s sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the
installation of septic tanks.
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
2 - 40
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction and operations under the GPU would
involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with
existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not
exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction.
Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the
Orange County Fire Authority would be required throughout the duration of project
construction. GPU buildout is expected to result in some increase in the number of hazardous
waste generators; however, hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed
of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation,
CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental
release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release.
The plan area includes 555 sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites
would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to
ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous
materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous
materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not
create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment.
Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan.
Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace
protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process.
The buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or
emergency access routes, and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation
routes. Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center
and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination
and cooperation between such agencies.
Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and implementation of the GPU will not
expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality: Projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the
demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious
surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off-site or contribute runoff
water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. Development
2 - 41
pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
(i) Land Use Planning: Implementation of the GPU would not divide an established community.
Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the
John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the
Southern California Association of Governments’ RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU
would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan.
(j) Mineral Resources: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource.
(k) Noise: The proximity of the plan area to an airport or airstrip would not result in exposure of
future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise.
(l) Population and Housing: The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities
than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or
housing.
(m) Public Services: The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new
residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries,
thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as
increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center.
The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment
capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District,
and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory
requirements and standard conditions of approval the project would not create significant
impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school
services.
(n) Recreation: The GPU would generate additional residents that would increase the use of
existing park and recreational facilities. However, upon implementation of regulatory
requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would not be significant. Project
implementation would result in environmental impacts to provide new and/or expanded
recreational facilities, but potentially adverse impacts to the environment that may result from
the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails pursuant to buildout of the
proposed land use plan would be less than significant upon the implementation of the GPU’s
goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations. Subsequent
environmental review for future individual park developments would also be required.
(o) Transportation and Traffic: The GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and
policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. Additionally, GPU implementation would result in a reduction of vehicle miles
traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and
would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Finally,
2 - 42
circulation improvements associated with future development that would be accommodated
by the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions
(sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access.
(p) Utilities and Service Systems: Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result
in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure
the regional sewer infrastructure will support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU.
Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development
pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. Development
pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed
increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able
to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore,
GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact
fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply
would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed
stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development
pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities would be able to
accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with related solid waste
regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the net increases
in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas
forecasts that it will supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to
obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies.
2 - 43
V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft PEIR, and
the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and
the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and
statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant
impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and
the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a) (1)—that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” This is referred to
herein as “Finding 1.”
Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency,” the City’s finding is referred to herein as “Finding 2.”
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either
(1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes
and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant
impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has
found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(3) 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 the environmental impact
report.” This is referred to herein as “Finding 3.”
A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would
result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided
in the Draft PEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant.
1. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses accommodated under the General Plan update could
create other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Industrial land uses associated with the GPU may generate potentially significant odor impacts
for a substantial number of people. Impacts from potential odors generated from residential and
other nonresidential land uses associated with the GPU are considered less than significant.
Impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.
2 - 44
The Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation
Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and facilities would comply with
South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a
development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line,
an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to
the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to
generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to:
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
• Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
• Painting/coating operations
• Large-capacity coffee roasters
• Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management
Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will
be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate
enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e.,
air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor
management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental
document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s
site plan.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure
above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is
feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.
2. Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts
to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
The inventory of existing conditions determined that no parcels with a proposed land use
designation that allows for development (i.e., not an open space designation) currently has
2 - 45
sensitive vegetation. All parcels currently have ruderal vegetation and little to no biological value.
Therefore, there is no current indication that future development in accordance with the GPU
would have significant unavoidable biological impacts. However, the programmatic analysis
prepared for this GPU was not at the detailed, site-specific analysis required for a specific
development project. Site-specific analyses could reveal biological resources not identified in the
Biological and Natural Resources Report. Therefore, there is a potential for biological impacts
associated with implementation of the GPU. Therefore, implementation of the GPU could result
in a potentially significant impact.
The letter received from CDFW states that the Santa Ana River and its tributaries historically
supported federally endangered southern California steelhead. CDFW’s letter requests that the
Draft Program EIR include an analysis of any proposed major stream crossings in the context of
fish passage, and states that the analysis should include, but not be limited to, steelhead presence
or historic presence, existing conditions including habitat and barrier assessments, any known
projects to remove barriers or restore habitat that would affect or be affected by this project, and
cumulative impacts to steelhead populations and/or habitat resulting from this project. The GPU
does not propose any major stream crossings. If any future development project entails
improvements for stream crossings (e.g. Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek), project-level
CEQA compliance would require a biological resources report that would address potential
impacts to endangered species, including the California steelhead.
Impact 5.3-1 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major
stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening
to determine whether a site-specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed,
a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological
resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to
sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend
mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource
impacts to less than significant.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.
2 - 46
Impact 5.3-4: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts
to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
The City of Santa Ana is largely urbanized, and migration corridors are generally limited to the
Santa Ana River and the Santiago Creek. Development under the GPU would result in the further
infill of the city and removal of vacant sites. The GPU would not change land use designations of
parcels that encompass the Santa Ana River or the Santiago Creek. However, development under
the GPU could further result in vegetation removal, intrusion by humans and pets, and increased
noise and air pollutants, which could impact wildlife movement and nesting sites. Therefore, the
buildout of the GPU could affect wildlife movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law.
Impact 5.3-4 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to BIO-1 above.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure
above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is
feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.
3. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-2: Development in accordance with the General Plan Update could impact archaeological resources.
Development involving ground disturbance within the plan area has the potential to impact known
and unknown archaeological resources. Typically, surface-level and subsurface archaeological
sites and deposits can be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with most types of
construction. Based on literature review and records searches, eight archaeological resources
have been recorded within the plan area, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site,
and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable
for prehistoric Native American occupation. While most of the plan area has been developed over
the course of the twentieth century, buried resources may remain in areas where developments
such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal
ground disturbance. A review of historical and ethnographic maps indicates a moderate likelihood
that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment.
Archaeological resources impacts are site specific, but more intensive development can result in
cumulative impacts on a regional level and should be considered in addition to individual project
2 - 47
impacts on individual sites. As determined by the respective lead agency on a project by project
basis, Phase I Cultural Resources studies would be required before ground disturbances and
demolition activities are permitted to occur. The study would identify resources on the affected
project sites that are, or appear to be, eligible for listing on the National or California Register.
Such studies would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve archaeological
and tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 were developed to reduce potential individual and
cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure
CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development
projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site. Mitigation
Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological
resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate
resource sensitivity. Upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7, individual
and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant
levels.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or
demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits
required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an
Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an
archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified
Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.
Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System
records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred
Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records
searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for
archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural
resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or
evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire
project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I
pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface
cultural materials that may be present.
CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be
avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an
archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine
significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined
significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible,
appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might
include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist
2 - 48
and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s
“Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents
and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP
1991).
CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found
the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist
shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas
with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction
personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an
archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s
initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the
protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological
resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities,
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while
the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the
Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal
resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any
collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s),
where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational
repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the
tribe.
CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant
archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological
resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s
Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction
personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of
an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction
with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and
legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that
archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing
activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be
halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated
for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal
resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any
collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s),
where relevant.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
2 - 49
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.
4. Geology and Soils
Impact 5.6-4: Future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could impact known and unknown paleontological resources.
Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection
under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Adoption of the GPU in itself will not
directly affect paleontological resources. Long-term implementation of the GPU land use plan
could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration),
including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of
undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past
could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, future development that would be
accommodated by the GPU could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Review
and protection of paleontological resources are also afforded by CEQA for individual development
projects that would be accommodated by the GPU, subject to discretionary actions that are
implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the GPU. Fossil localities have been found
in the vicinity of the plan area, although not in the plan area itself.
Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the
sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low
sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
With adherence to mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, Impact 5.6-4 would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed
areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a
qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include
inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive
geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away
from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are
determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens
and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to
record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if
applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.
GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving
ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high”
paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or
paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could
encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that
2 - 50
underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be
monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to
halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic
formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its
significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall
be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in
a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological
curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall
be signed prior to collection of the fossils.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.
5. Noise
Impact 5.12-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the
GPU may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne
vibration.
Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction activity at projects within the plan area would
generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and
equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the
ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the
construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction.
The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to
low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at
the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage
structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the
construction site.
Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the
potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec]
PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and
equipment for future project-level developments under the GPU are not known at this time but
may cause vibration impacts.
2 - 51
With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to
associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during
construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations-
related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and
proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less-than-significant levels. No significant
and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain.
Operational Vibration Impacts. Commercial and industrial operations within the plan area would
generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and
equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish
with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies
depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from
vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling
sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest
levels. In addition, future sensitive receptors could be placed within close proximity to existing
railroad lines through buildout in the plan area.
Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify
future vibration levels at vibration-sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future
vibration sources.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to
associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during
construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations-
related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and
proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less-than-significant levels. No significant
and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain.
Mitigation Measures
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during
construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet
of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or
within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller
within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration
analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these
activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and
experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12
inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical
resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3
in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed
2 - 52
this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and
static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction
vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not
exceeded.
N-3 New residential projects (or other noise-sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of
existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise
evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved
methodologies.
N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for
industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could
generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration
analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration
impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and
vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical
consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and
precedents.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.
6. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.17-1: The proposed project could 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).
The Sacred Land File search yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist
within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records search at SCCIC indicates that 23 archaeological
resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the plan area. Of these resources, eight
archaeological resources were located within the plan area; these include four prehistoric sites
with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The
plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American
occupation. While the city is urbanized and most of the plan area has been developed, buried
resources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance, such as parks, parking lots, and
structures with shallow foundations. Tribal cultural resources are site specific in nature.
2 - 53
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to
tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.
Impact 5.17-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead
agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c).
Future development as a result of the implementation of the GPU could include grading in portions
of the City with sensitivity to tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities that
require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause disturbance to tribal
cultural resources. Future development could potentially unearth previously unknown or
unrecorded tribal cultural resources.
Because the NAHC SLF search yielded positive results and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the city, the buildout of the GPU may cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Earthwork activities
may occur with buildout under the GPU that could impact previously undisturbed tribal cultural
resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to
tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above.
Finding
Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation
measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation
measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.
2 - 54
B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the GPU where mitigation
measures were found to be either infeasible or would not lessen impacts to less than significant.
The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1: The additional population growth forecast for the General Plan Update and the associated emissions would not be consistent with the assumptions of the air quality management plan.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
starting on page 5.2-28 of the Draft PEIR.
The GPU would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP
and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin
(SoCAB). Buildout of the GPU would exceed current population estimates for the city, and
therefore the emissions associated with the additional population are not included in the current
regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with
buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the
SoCAB. Therefore, overall, the GPU would be inconsistent with the AQMP.
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 into future development projects for the operation phase
would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU.
Additionally, goals and policies in the GPU would promote increased capacity for alternative
transportation modes and implementation of transportation demand management strategies.
However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation
measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast
AQMD thresholds. In addition, the population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would
continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the GPU.
Therefore, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects
subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt
projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment
evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of
Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance
with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology
in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to
have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of
significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development
2 - 55
projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during
operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the
conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions
could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service
connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated
trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy
storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked
for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845
(13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the
CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers,
and dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances
shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit
routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit
Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
2 - 56
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
However, the City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the General Plan Update could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District’s threshold criteria.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
starting on page 5.2-30 of the Draft PEIR.
Buildout of the GPU would occur over a period of approximately 25 years or longer. Construction
activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed
the South Coast AQMD’S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to
the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would
reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible.
However, construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not
available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed
at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence
to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects
subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt
projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment
evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa
Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for
assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are
determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted
thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant
2 - 57
emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be
incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction
management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation
measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited
to:
• Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule
403, such as:
§ Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
§ Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities.
• Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008
or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the
manufacturer’s standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five
consecutive minutes.
• Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
• Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be
found on the South Coast AQMD’s website.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
2 - 58
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would generate long-term
emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
starting on page 5.2-31 of the Draft PEIR.
Buildout in accordance with the GPU would generate long-term emissions that would exceed
South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the
nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, in addition to the goals and
policies of the GPU, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures
and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion
of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy
conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants in the city. Further, compared to existing
baseline year conditions, emissions of NOx, CO, and SOx are projected to decrease from current
levels despite growth associated with the GPU.
However, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the
overall land use development associated with the GPU. Contributing to the nonattainment status
would also contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants.
Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria
air pollutants.
It is speculative for this broad-based GPU to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds
would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment, since mass emissions are not
correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin
would suffer health effects. South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring
the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the
SoCAB, and at the present time it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation
between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised
in the Friant Ranch case.
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence
of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building
downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting
ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California Ambient Air Quality
Standards, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the
significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, the air
districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the ambient
air quality standards. However, because cumulative development within the city would exceed
the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health
effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB.
2 - 59
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-2, above.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
Impact 5.2-4: Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the
General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
starting on page 5.2-34 of the Draft PEIR.
Buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air
contaminants (TAC). Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or
TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South
Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and
gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally,
Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast
AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project-level environmental review by the City
of Santa Ana. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk
thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant.
However, implementation of the GPU would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated
levels in the air basin. Though individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of
10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of risk in the SoCAB.
Therefore, the GPU’s cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable.
2 - 60
Mitigation Measures
AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new
industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate
100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-
powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land
use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the
property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit
a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The
HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or
noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the
South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics
(T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing
potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include,
but are not limited to, restricting idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce
diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T
BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the
environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2 - 61
Impact 5.2-5: Development and operation of land uses accommodated by the General Plan
Update could generate emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of
criteria air pollutants.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
starting on page 5.2-35 of the Draft PEIR.
Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related construction activities and
large emitters of on-site operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and
operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed
South Coast AQMD’s Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2
would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the
GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation-related
criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of
these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-5 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would also be applicable in reducing construction- and
operation-related LST impacts.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2 - 62
2. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-1: Buildout consistent with the General Plan Update could impact an identified historic resource.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural
Resources, starting on page 5.4-26 of the Draft PEIR.
Generally, potential impacts to historical resources resulting from future projects developed
pursuant to the GPU would be mitigated by the City’s fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities
under CEQA. However, for certain development pursuant to the GPU, the City may determine
that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided. The City shall require, at a
minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any
permits. Though the possible demolition or alteration of a historical resource cannot be mitigated
to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts
to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible.
With fulfillment of the CUL-1 and CUL-2, future development consistent with the GPU would result
in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. However, if significant impacts cannot be
avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are
documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3. The Historical Resources Technical
Report determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future
development under the GPU will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, but will still be
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Therefore, the development under
the GPU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For
structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be
prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a
study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and
may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of
the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria
significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the
proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal
and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical
resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and
evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation
is more than five years old, it shall be updated.
CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum
extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion,
2 - 63
rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new
construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the
Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of
compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report
identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying
how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related
construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall
monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the
project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical
resources to less than significant.
CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that
significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at
a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before
issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or
memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a
historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated
to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant
adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such
recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian,
historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an
architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and
supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic
photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper
and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by
appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central
Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS
collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the
adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require
public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page,
brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near
the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent
installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location,
appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall
be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic
architect.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
2 - 64
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.7-1: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a decrease in GHG emissions in horizon year 2045 from existing baseline but
may not meet the long-term GHG reduction goal under Executive Order S-03-05.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, starting on page 5.7-31 of the Draft PEIR.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and
monitoring the City’s GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year
2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan
past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order
S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot
meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in
the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal,
but in the meantime, Impact 5.7-1 would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to
ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not
achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the
GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year
2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may
be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP
update shall include the following:
2 - 65
• GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels.
• Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the
long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
• Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP:
§ Administration and Staffing
§ Finance and Budgeting
§ Timelines for Measure Implementation
§ Community Outreach and Education
§ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
§ Tracking Tools
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
4. Noise
Impact 5.12-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the plan area would
result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting
on page 5.12-29 of the Draft PEIR.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during
construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction
activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the
potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary
2 - 66
substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact
does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at
the project level.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction
activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City
shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted
to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that
grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these
notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through
Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is
prohibited on Sundays.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project
construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved
mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures,
and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external
noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as
far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.
• Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes
established by the City Planning and Building Agency.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted
at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted
construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and
contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event
of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative
receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action,
and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction
zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of
2 - 67
unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for
more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of
noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise
level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance
with all safety requirements and laws.
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and
breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as
necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the
performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid
material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from
the ground to the top of the barrier.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.
The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
Impact 5.12-2: Buildout of the plan area would cause a substantial traffic noise increase
on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting
on page 5.12-30 of the Draft PEIR.
Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise-sensitive
receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures
available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing
2 - 68
residences along affected roadways. No individual measures and no set of feasible or practical
mitigation measures are available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant
levels in all cases. Thus, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. It should
be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-
than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measure N-2, above.
Finding
Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These
changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby
finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore
adopted.”
The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to
a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in
Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§
15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
5. Population and Housing
Impact 5.13-1: The GPU would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.13, Population
and Housing, starting on page 5.13-12 of the Draft PEIR.
Full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the city’s 2045 population
growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of
Governments’ 2045 projections. Furthermore, the city’s housing units at buildout would be
115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments’ projection by 38 percent.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at
buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
2 - 69
Mitigation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at
buildout.
Finding
Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into
consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as
discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines
§§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the
GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2 - 70
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would
“feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen
any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives”
(CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]).
As discussed above, the Draft PEIR identified significant impacts in a number of categories. The
following impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance: air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, tribal cultural resources impacts. The following
impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance: certain air quality, cultural resources,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, and population and housing impacts.
The Draft PEIR analyzed four alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce some, if not
all, of the impacts.
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT
PLANNING
“Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an
EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to
avoid significant environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[c]).
Alternative Circulation Element – Roadway Classifications. The proposed circulation element
in the GPU evolved over a long process and coordination with the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA). During this process, alternative packages of arterial roadway classifications
were considered that involved roadways in OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
The majority of reclassifications proposed were identified for bicycle facility safety improvements
in the City’s Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, prepared in 2016. Most of the reclassifications
identified were for roadways where bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements would require
roadway reconfiguration and a reduction in the number of existing or planned travel lanes. Many
of the SMSA recommendations across the city have already been, or are in the process of being,
implemented along arterial roadways without reducing the number of lanes.
A cursory review of two optional roadway reclassification packages was conducted to determine
whether these optional plans would have the potential to eliminate significant impacts of the
proposed GPU and meet most the project objectives. It was determined that a detailed evaluation
of this alternative was not needed to provide a reasonable range of EIR project alternatives.
Transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant
(VMT/SP falls below the significance threshold for the GPU without mitigation). Although these
alternatives may have some potential to reduce VMT (by reducing the number of travel lanes for
some roadways) and thereby also potentially reduce air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic noise
impacts, these alternatives would also result in more inconsistencies with the MPAH and result in
more traffic congestion. Although traffic congestion is no longer a CEQA consideration, the GPU
sets forth standards for level of service that will be considered by decision-makers. Moreover, the
2 - 71
Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful
alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts.
Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant,
unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this
significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were
determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases.
These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those
roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard
and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would
experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed
under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this
alternative was not deemed to be meaningful.
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives
with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review.
Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, and population and housing all
directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the programmatic
level of this GPU PEIR, site-specific information regarding potential significant historical impacts
is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce that impact. A
reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic noise impact
(as discussed above). The following development alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen
for further analysis.
No Project / Current General Plan Alternative
The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is
typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not
adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the
jurisdiction’s existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies
in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General
Plan—with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain
in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and
special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU.
Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative on the basis of
policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,
417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001;
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the
Final PEIR.
2 - 72
This alternative would result in similar impacts to 11 impact categories, reduced impacts to 5
environmental impacts, and increase impacts to 4 categories. Impacts would be similar for
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, tribal
cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce impacts for aesthetics, population
and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation would increase. This
alternative does not mitigate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the
GPU to a less than significant impact. It would also exceed the City’s VMT threshold. Overall,
impacts under this alternative would decrease in comparison to the proposed project.
The No Project/Current General Plan alternative would not achieve many of the proposed project
objectives. The existing land use plan does not provide the opportunities to provide housing and
employment at the levels required to meet local and regional goals. Moreover, the No Project
alternative would not provide numerous general policies as included in the GPU to achieve these
goals and invigorate communities. The current General Plan, however, protects established
neighborhoods and several Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas would provide for infill
opportunities, protect established neighborhoods, and result in mixed-use villages and bike- and
pedestrian-friendly communities.
Reduced Intensity Alternative
(Reduced capacity for the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas) Under the GPU, the
only areas that include revisions to land use designations to accommodate new growth are within
the five focus areas. The majority of remaining growth would occur within previously approved
Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. A nominal amount of growth is assumed to occur in
other areas of the city and would not require land use amendments. The Reduced Intensity
Alternative would substantially reduce development capacity within two focus areas, 55
Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol Street, which accommodate approximately 65 percent of the
housing unit growth and 72 percent of the nonresidential use (by building square footage) of the
growth projected for the combined focus areas under the GPU. For the focus areas, the forecast
buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed
development for each respective land use designation. For this alternative, development of the
55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of
the maximum allowed per the land use designations. This alternative would reduce housing units
by a total of 5,383 and would reduce total building square footage by approximately 4.2 million
square feet distributed between these two focus areas. This alternative would also reduce
population by 19,825 and jobs by 9,184. Overall, this alternative would reduce the housing growth
accommodated by the GPU land use changes by approximately 18 percent and reduce
nonresidential building square footage by approximately 27 percent.
Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative on the basis of policy and
economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California
2 - 73
Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final PEIR.
This alternative would result in similar impacts to 7 impact categories, reduce impacts to 12
categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics,
agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air
quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and
utilities and services. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to
the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions,
noise, and population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts
under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project.
The Reduced Density Alternative reduces the level of development for two of the five focus areas
(55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) relative to the GPU. No other changes to the
GPU are made for this alternative. It is assumed to include the same General Plan policies and
would not modify the circulation element or related improvements. Therefore, this alternative
would attain many of the project’s objectives. It would not “optimize” high density housing and
mass transit opportunities, and so was found not to attain objective No. 2. It would, however,
achieve objectives Nos. 3 through 5, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With the
reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not
be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities, and may not be as economically
feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed-use opportunities that are
bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live-work, artist spaces, and small-scale
manufacturing.
2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative
(Reduced development for RTP/SCS population/housing consistency) This alternative was
developed to evaluate an update to the General Plan that would be consistent with the population
and housing projections used to develop the Southern California Association of Governments’
(SCAG) most recent Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS)—Connect SoCal (adopted May 7, 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning
plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public
health goals. The plan embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with
input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit
organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The proposed GPU would result in a significant
population and housing impact because development under the GPU would substantially exceed
the projections used in Connect SoCal. SCAG uses locally prepared population and housing
projections to develop the regional plan. For the City of Santa Ana, those projections were
2 - 74
provided by the Orange County Council of Governments, as prepared by the Center for
Demographic Research. The population/housing figures reflected for Santa Ana in the regional
plan for 2045 are: population, 360,100; total housing units, 80,100; and total jobs, 176,400.
Projections for the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) use land use designations as approved in adopted
general plans. The employment projections are similar for the GPU and RTP/SCS scenarios, but
the RTP/SCS projections for population and housing units are substantially lower than GPU
projections (18 percent and 27 percent lower, respectively). The RTP/SCS alternative, therefore,
represents the least-development-intensive project alternative evaluated for the Draft PEIR.
§ This alternative would substantially reduce the growth that would be accommodated within
the focus areas under the GPU. New growth within the focus areas would total 6,380 housing
units and approximately 3.7 million square feet of nonresidential uses, instead of a total
additional 23,955 housing units and approximately 15.7 million square feet within the focus
areas. This alternative distributes anticipated development through the focus areas and the
approved Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas. For purposes of this alternative, it is assumed
that a development cap would be used to limit total growth to the projections shown.
§ Subsequent updates of the regional plan would incorporate updated land use from the GPU
and resolve the substantial discrepancy between the population and housing projections. Note
also that the Draft PEIR concludes that the GPU is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS.
This alternative has been defined to eliminate the significant impact associated with
substantial population growth that is inconsistent with the regional plan, as well as reduce
other significant growth-related (AQ/GHG, traffic noise) impacts associated with the GPU as
proposed.
Finding. The City Council rejects the 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative on the basis of
policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,
417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001;
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the
Final PEIR.
This alternative would reduce impacts to 12 environmental impacts, result in similar impacts to 6
categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. It would reduce impacts to air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and
service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. It would
increase impacts to land use and planning. It would also increase impacts to transportation and
potentially introduce a new significant impact. It is anticipated, however, that under this alternative,
transportation could be mitigated to less than significant. Under the GPU, transportation impacts
are less than significant without mitigation. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural
2 - 75
resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise would remain significant and unavoidable. The
impact to population and housing would be reduced to less than significant. Overall, impacts
under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project.
Due to the substantial reduction in housing opportunities citywide, this alternative is the least
effective in achieving the project objectives of the GPU. By setting a development cap to limit
housing and nonresidential development to the projections for the city in the 2020 RTP/SCS, this
alternative reduces housing units by 31,515 compared to the GPU. It reduces housing
development potential within the focus areas by 73 percent in comparison to the GPU, and
reduces overall city future development by 27 percent. To achieve this reduction, the development
cap would not only limit focus area development but would restrict the entitled housing in Specific
Plans/Special Zoning areas (reducing total housing within these areas by almost 14,000 units).
This alternative clearly would not optimize high density housing that maximizes mass transit use
(objective No. 2) or provide urban-level intensities at the urban edges (objective No. 3). Moreover,
it would not facilitate intensities that attract economic activities, particularly since it would not allow
the maximum entitlement of approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. It would achieve
the remainder of the objectives, but to a lesser extent than the GPU. It would protect established
neighborhoods, but not promote infill development as much as the GPU or other alternatives
(objective No. 1). It would provide only limited opportunities for live-work and artist spaces and
small-scale manufacturing (objective No. 7).
C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases
where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the GPU, the environmentally
superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as
“environmentally superior” to the GPU:
§ The RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative is concluded to be the environmentally superior
alternative. The No Project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed GPU.
Both the Reduced Density and RTP/SCS alternatives reduce environmental impacts in
comparison to the GPU, but the RTP/SCS reduces more impacts and eliminates a significant,
unavoidable impact of the GPU. This alternative was designed to eliminate the significant
population impact of the GPU, but it also reduces potential future development more than any
of the other alternatives.
2 - 76
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification
of the PEIR for General Plan Update PEIR (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 proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
“acceptable.”
b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute
for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave
significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the
project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable
adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures
2 - 77
with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project,
none of which both meets 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 PEIR for
the GPU, 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.
B. 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, and each of which,
standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Section
21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project are as follows:
1. The community, land use, and public services elements of the project encourage healthy
lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and policies
and practices that improve the health of residents. The policies also affirm and support a
socially and economically diverse community with equitable distribution of resources.
2. Implementation of the GPU fulfills one of the key strategies identified in the Santa Ana
Strategic Plan in the completion of a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan.
3. The project improves the jobs-housing balance; the ratio of 1.5 would give the city a more
equal distribution of employment and housing. The population growth resulting directly from
the proposed GPU would be offset by the level of employment opportunity provided to the
city’s residents and workers commuting into Santa Ana.
4. The project results in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP)
and a reduction in related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions
compared with existing conditions because the GPU includes policies that promote the
reduction of VMT. Policy 2.5 of the land use element encourages infill mixed-use
development at all ranges of affordability to reduce VMT, and policy 4.5 aims to concentrate
development along high-quality transit corridors. Policy 4.6 of the circulation element
promotes reductions in automobile trips and VMT by encouraging transit use and
nonmotorized transportation as alternatives to augmenting roadway capacity.
5. The project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in
economic activities and employment increases.
2 - 78
6. Implementation of the project would introduce policies and actions that address the
importance of protecting the health of residents and the environment by improving air quality,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging active transportation.
7. 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.
8. The project facilitates the economic development of the city by promoting development that
is mixed use, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, and clustered around activity centers
through new and infill residential development. Additionally, the proposed project would
improve the city’s jobs/housing balance by supporting development that provides housing
and employment opportunities to enable people to live and work in Santa Ana.
9. Implementation of the project would coordinate air quality planning efforts to meet state and
federal ambient air quality standards by considering the goals of the Climate Action Plan in
all major decision on land use and public infrastructure investment and investing in low- to
zero-emission vehicles. These policies also promote development that meets or exceeds
standards for energy-efficient building design, and the consideration of sensitive of potential
emission sources on sensitive uses.
10. The project promotes economic growth and diversity within the city. The economic prosperity
element of the GPU includes policies related to improving Santa Ana’s economy and its role
within the region.
2 - 79
VIII. RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE PEIR
The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR in evaluating the
proposed project, that the Final PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final PEIR 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 PEIR
that would require recirculation.
The City of Santa Ana certifies the PEIR 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 PEIR and
will require mitigation as set forth in Section V of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance: air quality (project-related and cumulative), cultural resources (project-
related), greenhouse gas emissions (project-related), noise (project-related), and population and
housing (project-related).
Conclusions
1. Except the impacts (stated above) relating to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas,
noise, and population and housing, all significant environmental impacts from the
implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the PEIR 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.
2 - 80
IX. 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.
2 - 81
X. 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 PEIR and the 20-day extension to the comment period.
3. The Final PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the
Draft PEIR, 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 General
Plan Update, 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 Santa Ana General Plan Update.
7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the General Plan Update PEIR up through 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.
9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section
21167.6, subdivision (e).
The following location is where the record may be reviewed:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
2 - 82
EXHIBIT C
October 2020 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Santa Ana General Plan Update
City of Santa Ana
Prepared for:
City of Santa Ana
Contact: Verny Carvajal, Principal Planner
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
2 - 83
2 - 84
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................ 1
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 6
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics .............................................................................. 3
Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary .............................................................................................................. 5
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ...................................................................... 7
2 - 85
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2 - 86
October 2020 Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to
monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code
and City of Santa Ana monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision subsection (a) of
Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made
to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be
designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which
have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency
or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project,
that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and
submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address
required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or
other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation,
or project design.
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or
mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over
natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and
detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant
effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction
over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily
available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead
2 - 87
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 2 PlaceWorks
agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected
by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are
subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or
noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources
affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible
agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the
authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this
division or any other provision of law.
The MMRP will serve to document compliance with adopted/certified mitigation measures that are formulated
to minimize impacts associated with future development that would be accommodated by the Santa Ana
General Plan.
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The GPU is the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan
Update is to comprehensively update the 1982 plan to reflect current conditions, establish a shared vision of
the community’s aspirations, and create the policy direction to guide Santa Ana’s long-term planning and growth
over the next two decades. The General Plan Update will include the City’s future development goals and will
provide policy statements to achieve those goals. Implementation actions related to each goal or policy will be
included as a separate Implementation Plan to ensure successful monitoring of progress as a community.
Furthermore, the GPU will focus on five areas in Santa Ana that are better suited for future development or
overall improvement. These focus areas are:
§ South Main Street
§ Grand Avenue/17th Street
§ West Santa Ana Boulevard
§ 55 Freeway/Dyer Road
§ South Bristol Street
General Plan Update
The updated General Plan is organized into three sections: Services and Infrastructure (I), Natural
Environment (II), and Built Environment (III). The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required by
state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics
and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements. The 12 proposed elements
of the GPU will replace 16 existing elements. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014–2021 Housing
Element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort
in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout
the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed GPU
are:
2 - 88
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 3
Mandatory Topics Optional Topics
§ Land Use Element
§ Circulation Element
§ Housing Element
§ Open Space Element
§ Conservation Element
§ Safety Element
§ Noise Element
§ Public Services Element
§ Urban Design Element
§ Community Element
§ Economic Prosperity Element
§ Historic Preservation Element
The GPU will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and
revitalization/restoration) in the plan area by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through
implementation of updated goals and policies of the GPU. Table 1-1 outlines the proposed land use
designations under the GPU.
Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics
Land Use Designation Acres % of Total
Grand Avenue/17th Street 171.5 —
District Center 23.7 13.8
General Commercial 19.9 11.6
Industrial/Flex 7.1 4.1
Open Space 1.1 0.6
Urban Neighborhood 119.7 69.8
55 Freeway/Dyer Road 354.5 —
District Center 158.0 44.6
General Commercial 68.0 19.2
Industrial/Flex 127.4 35.9
Open Space 1.1 0.3
South Bristol Street 199.9 —
District Center 108.3 54.2
Open Space 6.0 3.0
Urban Neighborhood 85.7 42.9
South Main Street 312.2 —
Industrial/Flex 29.0 9.3
Institutional 19.2 66.1
Low Density Residential 162.3 845.8
2 - 89
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 4 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics
Land Use Designation Acres % of Total
Urban Neighborhood 101.7 62.7
West Santa Ana Boulevard 481.6 —
Corridor Residential 10.0 2.1
General Commercial 21.5 4.5
Industrial/Flex 87.9 18.3
Institutional 45.5 9.4
Low Density Residential 108.1 22.4
Low-Medium Density Residential 6.8 1.4
Medium Density Residential 27.0 5.6
Open Space 133.6 27.7
Professional and Administrative Office 6.2 1.3
Urban Neighborhood 35.0 7.3
Balance of City 11,598.8 —
District Center 124.2 1.1
General Commercial 424.2 3.7
Industrial 2,159.6 18.6
Institutional 886.7 7.6
Low Density Residential 6,173.3 53.2
Low-Medium Density Residential 429.0 3.7
Medium Density Residential 335.3 2.9
One Broadway Plaza District Center 4.1 0.0
Open Space 793.8 6.8
Professional and Administrative Office 260.4 2.2
Urban Neighborhood 4.1 0.0
Not Specified 4.1 0.0
Total 13,118.5 100%
Source: Figures aggregated and projected by PlaceWorks, 2020.
The full buildout scenario is analyzed in comparison to existing conditions. Table 1-2 details buildout statistics.
Similarly, the PEIR provides conclusions regarding impact significance for this scenario for both the proposed
GPU and project alternatives.
2 - 90
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 5
Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary
PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.1 Jobs
FOCUS AREAS 23,955 15,684,285 35,044
55 Freeway/Dyer Road 9,952 6,142,283 13,302
Grand Avenue/17th Street 2,283 703,894 1,622
South Bristol Street 5,492 5,082,641 11,192
South Main Street 2,308 946,662 2,151
West Santa Ana Boulevard 3,920 2,808,805 6,777
SPECIFIC PLAN / SPECIAL ZONING 20,524 16,958,445 39,702
Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone2 1,260 976,935 2,567
Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan 135 143,139 282
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan 4,622 1,967,982 1,578
MainPlace Specific Plan 1,900 2,426,923 5,380
Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone 5,551 4,685,947 12,258
Midtown Specific Plan 607 1,818,253 4,615
Transit Zoning Code 6,449 4,939,266 13,022
ALL OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY3 70,574 40,325,086 95,670
CITYWIDE TOTAL 115,053 72,967,816 170,416
Source: City of Santa Ana 2020. 1 Only includes nonresidential building square footage. 2 The figures shown on the row for the Adaptive Reuse Overlay represents parcels that are exclusively in the Adaptive Reuse Overlay boundary. Figures for parcels that
are within the boundaries of both the Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone and a specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area boundary are accounted for in the respective specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area. 3 The City has included an assumption for growth on a small portion (5 percent) of residential parcels through the construction of second units, which is distributed throughout the city and is not concentrated in a subset of neighborhoods. Additional growth includes known projects in the pipeline and an increase of 10 percent in building square footage and employment for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan.
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest
of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city
of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of
Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In
November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city.
The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin
Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere
of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area.
2 - 91
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6 PlaceWorks
1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that
are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The
mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation
measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Draft PEIR,
specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring and reporting that must
occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of
approval contained in the MMRP. To effectively track and document the status of mitigation measures, a
mitigation matrix has been prepared (see Table 1-3).
2 - 92
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 7
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
5.2 AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such as:
§ Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
§ Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities.
§ Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
Prior to discretionary approval
Project Applicant and Construction Contractor
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 93
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 8 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
• Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
• Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD’s website.
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Prior to the discretionary approval
Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 94
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 9
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
2 - 95
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 10 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan..
Prior to future discretionary project approval
Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to:
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
• Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Prior to future discretionary project approval
Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 96
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 11
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
• Painting/coating operations
• Large-capacity coffee roasters
• Food-processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.
5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site-specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant.
Concurrent with submittal of site development plans and prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s);
Prior to issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 97
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 12 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated.
CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant.
Prior to any disturbance of a historical resource, as determined by the intensive-level historical evaluation of a property
Property Owner or Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 98
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 13
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 99
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 14 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.
Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991).
Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 100
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 15
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards. and This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor shall be conducted in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.
Prior to construction activities
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 101
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 16 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant.
Prior to construction activities
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities..
During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 102
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 17
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.
During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following:
Every five years City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division in coordination with Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 103
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 18 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
• GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels.
• Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
• Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP:
§ Administration and Staffing
§ Finance and Budgeting
§ Timelines for Measure Implementation
§ Community Outreach and Education
§ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
§ Tracking Tools Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate Action Plan:
• Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations
• Measure to increase carbon sinks
• Standards for electric vehicle parking
• Standards for construction projects
5.12 NOISE
N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design,
Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits
Project Applicant/ Developer and Architect
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 104
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 19
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
• Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the
2 - 105
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 20 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
N-3 New residential projects (or other noise-sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 106
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 21
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents.
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Project Applicant/ Developer and Acoustical Engineer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 107
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 22 PlaceWorks
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991).
Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.
Prior to construction activities
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 108
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2020 Page 23
Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party
Document Location (Monitoring Record)
Completion Date
Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor
CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant.
Prior to construction activities
Project Applicant/ Developer
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division
2 - 109
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 24 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2 - 110
EXHIBIT 2
2 - 111
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 1
LS 11.9.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2020-06 FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE SANTA ANA
GENERAL PLAN
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, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with
Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and
WHEREAS, in 1982, the City of Santa Ana last completed a comprehensive
update to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, various elements of the General Plan have been amended and adopted from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana seeks to adopt a comprehensive update to the
Santa Ana General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City created a General Plan Advisory Group (GPAG) to
formulate the five Core Values of Culture, Sustainability, Health, Education and Equity
that were developed to be interwoven throughout the document; and,
WHEREAS, per SB 1000, the City is required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan update due to a number of disadvantaged communities located
within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the goals, policies, and implementation items associated with
environmental justice have been selectively placed within the majority of the updated Elements due to their importance; and,
WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1)
the revision to the State mandated Elements of the General Plan; (2) the inclusion of
optional Elements to the General Plan; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-06, which would result in a comprehensive update to the existing General
Plan; and
2 - 112
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 2
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a community-wide vision document that is
intended to address and respond to community needs, with staff conducting outreach with
community members about the process to as wide an audience as possible; and,
WHEREAS, over the past five years, an extensive public outreach campaign to
engage the public was conducted to supplement the feedback, input and direction for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. Public outreach efforts included hosting over
60 community meetings and workshops; hosting individual community workshops within
each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community
stakeholders participating in the workshops; distributing an online community survey with over 650 respondents to collect input on the content of the General Plan; the mailing of
approximately 44,000 informational flyers to property owners and tenants; presentations
at neighborhood Communication Linkages (CommLink) meetings; outreach meetings with
Environmental Justice groups (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan
Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association); and, attendance at approximately 100 Cares events (daily neighborhood functions and evening City Park events) from late-August through the end of October within Environmental Justice
communities to discuss the General plan update with residents; and,
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (State
Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2020029087) (“EIR”) for the proposed General Plan update
was circulated between August 3, 2020 and September 16, 2020; and
WHEREAS, due to feedback from the community, the comment period was
extended another 20-days and closed on October 6, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2020, the City invited recognized Native American
tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment
pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City received a comment letter from the
Juanero Band of Mission Indians, with the group providing comments but not requesting to consult with the City, with comments responded to in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, Planning Commission work-
study sessions were held on August 24, 2020 and September 14, 2020 where staff presented the proposed General Plan update and the Draft EIR for review and
comment; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06. 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 of fact, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and
2 - 113
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 3
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and
appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified
by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council
public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) by noticing in the Orange County Register, a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Ana, and by mailing to owners
of property and residents within 500 feet of the five Focus Areas, those listed in the
Permanent Notification Binder, those listed on the Notice of Availability distribution list, and those listed on the General Plan interest list; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06, at
which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03. 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 of fact, the statement of overriding considerations and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council
has reviewed, certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03,
adopted the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project,
including General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06.
Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment
consists of amendments to 11 Elements of the General Plan and text updates, as
shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, and on file
and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa
Ana, California 92702.
Section 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds
that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives,
policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that:
A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan.
2 - 114
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 4
B. The proposed Project is a comprehensive update to the current General Plan. The current General Plan will be consolidated into 12 elements, with 11 Elements
being comprehensively updated including the Community Element, the Mobility
Element, the Economic Prosperity Element, the Public Services Element, the
Conservation Element, the Open Space Element, the Noise Element, the Safety Element, the Land Use Element, the Historic Preservation Element, and the Urban
Design Element.
C. The Housing Element is on a separate update schedule and will be updated in
2021 in compliance with State law.
D. The new and updated goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan will be
coordinated and consistent throughout the General Plan document.
E. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment is a
comprehensive update to the existing General Plan that is intended to address
issues such as incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies
between General Plan goals or policies, and will mitigate adverse impacts to the environment.
Section 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council hereby takes the
following action:
1. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 as set forth in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to
compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon
satisfaction of the conditions set forth below:
A. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 is certified by the City
Council.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 shall not take effect unless and until the City Council overrules the Determination of Inconsistency by the Airport
Land Use Commission.
Section 7. 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 ____ day of___________, 2020.
_______________________ Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
2 - 115
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers ___________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ___________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ___________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ___________________, 2020.
Date: ____________ ____________________________
Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
2 - 116
EXHIBIT 3
2 - 117
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No. 2020-06
Comprehensive Update to the General Plan
The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at:
https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/general-plan-environmental-documents
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 3 – Link to EIR
2 - 118
EXHIBIT 4
2 - 119
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No. 2020-06
Comprehensive Update to the General Plan
The Updated General Plan Elements are available online at:
https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/draft-documents
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 4 – Link to General Plan Elements
2 - 120