The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-072 - Setting Adminstrative Fines for Violation the Municipal CodeRESOLUTION NO. 2024-072 A RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SETTING ADMINSTRATIVE FINES FOR VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. California Government Code Section 53069.4 authorizes the City to make violations of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) subject to an administrative fine and penalty. B. On September 21, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law State Senate Bill 60 which amended California Government Code Section 36900 to increase the maximum fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws. C. SAMC Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9 set forth the administrative citation process, which provides for notice of the violation and the opportunity to contest the citation. If the citation is continuing and pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, and does not create an immediate danger to health and safety, the responsible person is provided sufficient time to correct the violation before a fine is imposed. D. SAMC Section 1-21.3(a) authorizes the City Council to establish by resolution the amounts of fines associated with administrative citations. E. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on November 19, 2024 to consider this Resolution and the first reading of the accompanying Ordinance. Section 2. The City Council hereby establishes the following fine amounts for administrative citations for violations of the SAMC: The amounts of administrative fines shall be assessed as listed below: A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(d)(1)&(2), and notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Article XXI of the SAMC related to short-term rentals determined to be an infraction that poses a threat to public health or safety is punishable by the following: Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 1 of 67 1. A fine not exceeding one thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first violation. 2. A fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation. 3. A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation. B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(e), the citation recipient of a fine may request a hardship waiver pursuant to the process established by the Director of the City's Planning and Building Agency. Section 3. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) ("GPU EIR"), the Addendum to the GPU EIR, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the potential environmental impacts associated with this Resolution. The City Council finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the GPU EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the changes to the GPU, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because the Resolution does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations City-wide set forth in the General Plan Update and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. The buildout of housing had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GPU EIR, and the Resolution would not result in additional development of housing within the City. Based on these findings, the City Council makes the following findings: a) The Resolution does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the GPU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects. b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Resolution will be implemented that would require major revisions of the GPU due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 2 of 67 c) New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the GPU was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt. The City Council approves and adopts the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The GPU EIR, the Addendum, and any other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file and available for public review at the Planning Division public counter located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana. In the alternative, the adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 — Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." Here, the Resolution is adopted in conjunction with existing policy and practice, prohibiting short- term rentals within the City and the Resolution would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the Resolution would be typical of enforcement of municipal ordinances. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only Resolution establishing the fines for short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the Resolution will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals. The Resolution will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Resolution does not propose any ground -breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on short-term rentals. The Resolution is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Resolution will not cause a substantial Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 3 of 67 adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the Resolution falls under the Class 1 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required. A Notice of Determination and Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted with State Clearinghouse and the County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect on the effective date of Ordinance No. NS-3072, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2024. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Vdon Salvatierra f Deputy City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers Bacerra Hernandez Lopez, Penaloza Phan Vazquez 6 NOES: Councilmembers Amezcua ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None 0 ABSENT: Councilmembers None 0 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 4 of 67 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, JENNIFER L, HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024-072 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on November 19, 2024. nifer Cqy� '-7---City of S a Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 5 of 67 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 6 of 67 Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana General Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087 City of Santa Ana Short -Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, California 92701 Tel: 714.667.2793 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Malia Durand, Associate Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92107 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 7 of 67 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 8 of 67 Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.........................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................................................1 ? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.......................................................................................................................1 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION..........................................................................1 1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings........................................................................................................ 2 1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT.................................................................................................................................... 5 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................7 3. t CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION............................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum................................................................................................................ 9 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................13 3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................13 4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.........................................................................15 4.1 AESTHETICS......................................................................................................................................................15 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES...................................................................................16 4.3 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................................................17 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 22 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 23 4.6 ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................28 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................................. 29 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................................................................... 31 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .........................................................................................33 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QU-ILITY...................................................................................................35 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING...................................................................................................................... 37 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................38 4.13 NOISE....................................................................................................................................................................39 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................................................42 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................43 4A6RECREATION ....................................................................................................................................................44 4.17 TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................................................45 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL. RESOURCES..............................................................................................................46 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................................................................ 47 4.20 'WILDFIRE.- ....... ........................................................ ........................................................................................ 49 4.21 1VIANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................................... 49 5. FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................51 6. LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................................. 53 CITYOF SANTA ANA...................................................................................................................................................... 53 PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................................................................... 53 7. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................55 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 9 of 67 Fi ire Page Figure1 Regional Map.........................................................................................................................................3 APPENDICES Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short -Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 10 of 67 1. Introduction and Background i I = a :11111*111 WWI I IQki The City of Santa Ana (City) is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southeast of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. Santa Ana 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 (refer to Figure 1, Regional Map). 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). 1,2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Santa Ana is a 27.4-square-mule area developed with a variety of urban land uses. The Civic Center in Santa Ana is Orange County's main center of government. The Santa Ana River runs north to south through the northwestern part of the city. The city is a 99 percent built -out community in urbanized Orange County, bordered by a mix of land uses. The surrounding cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Irvine all contain a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses. 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Ana General Plan (GP). The original Program EIR for the GP was circulated for public review from August 3, 2020, through September 27, 2020, then extended for an additional 20 days through October G, 2020. A Final EIR was prepared and a Planning Commission Public Hearing held on November 9, 2020. The Planning Coimnission directed extended public outreach and modifications to the GP. A Recirculated Draft EIR (REIR) was prepared and circulated for public review mid -August 2021 to September 2021. A Final EIR was prepared and the 2021 Final EIR certified on April 20, 2022. The certified Final EIR for the GP is a consolidation of the original Draft EIR, the update Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final EIR including Response to Comments and revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs to address public and agency comments and incorporate other updates. The REIR, the original Draft EIR, and the Final EIR are collectively referred to as "GP EIR." These environmental documents are available on the City of Santa Ana website. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the GP EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 11 of 67 The GP EIR analyzed the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan (Approved Project). The GP EIR addressed the entire territory within the plan area's boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The General Plan also included forecasts of long-term conditions and outlined development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. Specifically, the General Plan identified policies related to promoting compatible land uses, preserving neighborhood character, promoting healthy neighborhoods, and promoting the enforcement of standards. 1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings The GP EIR addressed the potential impacts of the GP and provided mitigation measures, as necessary, for impacts determined to be potentially significant. Two environmental categories were found to have no impacts: ■ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ■ Wildfire The following environmental categories were found to have less than significant impacts upon implementation of General Plan policies, existing regulations, and standard conditions of approval: No CEQA mitigation was required for: ■ Aesthetics ■ Energy ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Mineral Resources ■ Public Services ■ Transportation ■ Utilities and Service Systems The following impacts were determined to be less than significant upon implementation General Plan policies, existing regulations, standard conditions of approval, and recommended CEQA Mitigation Measures: ■ Biological Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Tribal Cultural Resources Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 12 of 67 Figure 1 Regional Map Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 13 of 67 Thirpa,ge intentionally left blank. Resolution No, 2024-072 Page 14 of 67 Implementation of the General Plan was determined to result in significant, unavoidable impacts, even widr feasible mitigation, for the following categories: • Air Quality ■ Cultural Resources ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Noise • Population and Housing ■ Recreation 1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT The Addendum is structured as follows: Section 1. Introduction and Background. Summarizes the background and scope of analysis of the Addendum, previous environmental EIR incorporated by reference, and the format of the Addendum. Section 2. CEQA Requirements. Describes the purpose of an Addendum per CEQA and associated environmental procedures. Section 3. Project Description: Includes a description of the City of Santa Ana Short -Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance and further discusses the purpose of the Addendum to the EIR. Section 4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Includes the analysis addressing each environmental issue analyzed in the certified EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the proposed Ordinance Section 5. Findings. Summarizes the findings of the environmental review and substantiates the preparation of an Addendum for the EIR. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 15 of 67 This page intentioaaally left blank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 16 of 67 2. CEQA Requirements 2.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION This section is provided for informational purposes and provides a discussion of the Modified Project's qualification for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). The Class 1 Exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-190(a), the Zoning Code (Chapter 41 of the SAMC) is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has never listed short-term rentals (STR) as a permissible use in any zoning district, making them prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The City proposes an amendment to the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city, to reaffirm existing law (SAMC Section 41--190[a]), and to preserve the residential character of city neighborhoods and stem the negative, secondary effects caused by those uses. Specifically, the City proposes the readoption of the Short -Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance that adds Article NM (Section 8-3400 through 8-34002) to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to provide definitions related to short-term rentals, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations (herein "Modified Project"). The Modified Project qualifies for the Class 1 exemption as the Modified Project would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The Modified Project is reaffirming existing law. The operational activities associated with the Modified Project would be typical of residential development. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project has been reviewed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, Exceptions, for any characteristics or circumstances that might invalidate the project's qualification for an exemption from CEQA. Each exception is listed below followed by a brief assessment of whether that exception applies to the Modified Project. (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project would be located —a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 17 of 67 This exception applies to the Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 exemptions. The project fits the Class 1 exemption, which is not location -dependent. Further the use can only occur within a dwelling that is already constructed, which means the requisite CEQA analysis has been completed and the project approved. Therefore, the location exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption and further analysis is not required. (b) Cumulative Impacts. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is proposed or required within the City to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not combine with sitrrilar projects to create a cumulative impact during construction or operation. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project. (c) Significant Effects. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The determination whether this exception applies involves two distinct questions: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from the unusual circumstances. The lead agency considers the second prong of this test only if it finds that some circumstance of the project is unusual. Berkeley Hillside Preservafiion v City of Berkeley (2015) 60 C4th 1086, 1104. Because the Modified Project is not dependent upon location, it presents no unusual circumstances or special environmental constraints that might lead to a significant impact. Additionally, there are no unusual circumstances because this Modified Project is implementing ongoing City practice and there are no new changes, physical or otherwise, that would occur as a result of the Modified Project. The city is urbanized. No construction, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. Additionally, activities associated with the operation of the long-term rental uses under the Modified Project would not differ from the activities that occur under owner -occupied dwelling units within the city and would be consistent with the GP. Since no unusual circumstances would arise because of the Modified Project, there is no potential for a significant environmental impact to occur. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage in scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. There are no State designed scenic highways within the City. Additionally, no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Modified Project. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 18 of 67 (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As identified in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of d-ie GP EIR, 425 hazardous materials sites were identified in the city but only 63 of the sites are open, rneaning that assessment, remediation, and/or verification of remediation is required. Any development or redevelopment on or next to any of the 63 sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). The Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAME that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section 41-190(a) of the SAME. The Modified Project would apply to existing residential units and would not relocate uses nor locate new uses on a site identified on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. Under Public Resource Code Section 21084,1, a historical resource is a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, historical resources included in a local register of historical resources are presumed to be historically or culturally significant, and a lead agency can determine whether the resource may be an historical resource. The Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is requited to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result is a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project. 2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum In addition to the Class 1 exemption, the City has also prepared this Addendum to the GP EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth criteria for determining the required additional environmental documentation when a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a project for which a subsequent discretionary action is necessary. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and 15163 state that when an ND has been adopted or an EIR certified for a project, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or Subsequent ND shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or more of the following. Resolution No, 2024-072 Page 19 of 67 A. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Modified Project proposes to amend the SAMC to add Article NM to Chapter S to clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. No physical changes are required to implement the Modified Project. As discussed under Section 4, Evaluation of Emironmental Impacts, of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. B. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes have occurred in the City with respect to the circumstances under which the Approved Project was undertaken that requires major revisions to the GP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. C. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the ND was adopted, shows any of the following: i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND; or As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not discussed in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted ND or previously certified EIR; or As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not require new mitigation measures and does not identify alternatives previously found not feasible to be feasible. Additionally, the Modified Project would not substantially reduce the significant impacts identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 20 of 67 iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous ND or EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project does not identify any mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerable different than those identified and analyzed in the GP EIR that would substantially reduce one or more of the significant impact identified in the GP FIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that an addendum to a previously adopted ND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. The proposed Ordinance does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations citywide set forth in the General Plan and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the city is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project is consistent with the GP as analyzed in the GP EIR. As concluded in Impact 5.13.2 of the GP EIR, the GP "would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist" and the GP would not displace people and/or housing (GP FIR p. 5.13-14-5.13-15). The Modified Project would not construct new housing but would prevent the loss of existing housing stock for city residents. Congruently, the Modified Project would not displace people and/or housing, and would be consistent with GP Policy 2.3, RentaI housing, and Policy 2.4, Diverse types of housing, as discussed within the GP EIR. Additionally, buildout of housing (including existing homes being utilized as STRs) had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GP EIR, and the Modified Project would not result in additional development of housing within the city. The anticipated environmental impacts of the Modified Project, as explained in this Addendum, have therefore been analyzed and mitigated in the GP EIR, and no new circumstances or significant changes since that time would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated in the Addendum, mitigation measures in the GP EIR would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. As such, CEQA does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental FIR. Further, the Addendum includes an Environmental Review Update Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) that has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e) to explain the rationale for determining that no further environmental review is required. Per State CEQA Guidelines section. 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 21 of 67 This page iaztentionalll left blank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 22 of 67 3. Proiect Descriation 3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The Santa Ana City Council is proposing to readopt an amendment to add Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 to 8-3402) to SAMC to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city (Modified Project). This would nullify and replace the terms of the urgency ordinance No. NS-3060 and standard ordinance No. NS-3061, adopted on April 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024. Modified Project Components The Modified Project would add Article XXI (Short--Term-Rentals) (Sections 8-3400-8-3402) to Chapter 8, Building and Standards, of the SAMC. Specifically, Article XXI would include Sections 8-3400 through 8-3402 to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. A description of each new section of Article XXI is provided in Attachment A of this EIR Addendum. Concurrently, the City Council is proposing to adopt a resolution to set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and short- term rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 23 of 67 Thispage intentionaljleft blank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 24 of 67 4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the following analysis addresses each of the environmental issues analyzed in the GP EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the Modified Project. 4.1 AESTHETICS According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? AE-3 In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and odler regulations governing scenic quality? AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the GP EIR, the city is highly urbanized, and views of the city are characterized by an urban landscape. The Approved Project would alter the visual appearance of the existing conditions to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana's skyline. However, it would not create a substantially adverse impact on scenic vistas nor degrade the city's visual character or quality. Adherence with existing State and local regulations and the GP policies would ensure that future development in Santa Ana would not degrade the views and visual character of the city and would not conflict with zoning and other regulations that govern scenic quality. The GP EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1-30). No state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city not are located near the city. The GP EIR concluded that no impacts to scenic resources within state scenic highways would occur (GP EIR p. 5.1-31). Additionally, die Approved Project will generate new and intensify sources of light and glare. With adherence to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 25 of 67 Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) as amended by the Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article II, impacts would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1-32). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions for aesthetics and aesthetics resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR; the city is considered highly urbanized with views characterized by an urban landscape; and no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city (GP EIR p.5.1-20-5.1-32; Caltrans 2024). The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The Modified Project would not result in any new sources of artificial Eight or glare. No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The GP EIR Regulatory Requirement (RR) AE-1 through AE-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. Additionally, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Summary of lmpacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 8.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would allow for the development of a mix of uses within highly urbanized areas of the city. Additionally, the city is nearly built out and does not contain any significant agricultural resources, nor does the city contain any land Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 26 of 67 subject to the Williamson Act Contract. Furthermore, the city does not contain any land zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, the GP would have no impact on agricultural and forest resources (GP EIR p. 8-1-8.2). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the existing conditions for agriculture and forest resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. 4.3 AIR QUALITY According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would exceed population estimates used in the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and emissions associated with the additional population were not included in the regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with the buildout of the Approved Project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattaimnent designations in the SoCAB (GP EIR p. 5.2-30). The GP EIR identified mitigation measures (1VIl12) AQ-1 and AQ-2 to reduce impacts related to construction and operational emissions. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Approved Project would result in construction emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) thresholds (GP EIR p. 5.2-31). The buildout of the Approved Project could exceed the South Coast AQMD regional emissions threshold under operational conditions (GP EIR p. 5.2-34). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of MMs AQ-1 and AQ-2, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 27 of 67 The Approved Project would result in new land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) in the City from area/ sources and mobile sources. The GP EIR identified that the new land uses consistent with the Approved Project would generate new sources of TACs from area/stationary sources and mobile sources (GP EIR p. 5.2-37). The GP EIR identified MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors due to construction and operational activities (MM AQ-1 and AQ-2) and specifically industrial development project operation activities (MM AQ-3). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures impacts would remain significant and unavoidable_ The Approved Project could generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people generated from industrial land uses associated with the Approved Project. The GP EIR concluded that potential odors generated from residential and other non-residential land uses associated with the Approved Project would not result in potential significant odors (GP EIR p. 5.2-28). The GP EIR identified mitigation measure MM AQ-4 to reduce impacts related to operational odors due to industrial development. The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation. The GP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ -4 are reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with die recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and st6keatt for deletions. 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 CoastAQMD) 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. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 28 of 67 ■ 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. 9 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. 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 shalt require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following. ■ For site specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. ■ Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. ■ Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include 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). Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 29 of 67 ■ 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. P 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. a 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. 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. 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 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 30 of 67 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. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The existing conditions related to air quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. Operational activities associated with long-term rentals and permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Increases in impacts to air quality, are based on construction of new structures generating new vehicle trips or population growth. The Modified Project would only affect existing structures, would not induce population growth, and therefore there would be no change in air quality impacts beyond those identified the GP EIR, which analyzed impacts from buildout of the GP. The Modified Project would not result in any physical impacts on the environment or impacts associated with air quality. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR AQ-1 through RR AQ-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. GP EIR MMs AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. MM AQ-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not propose new industrial or warehousing development. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 31 of 67 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: BIO-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? BIO-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? BIO-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? B10-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? BIO-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? BI0-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would allow development within the City's SOI, and five special status species have the potential to exist in the region (GP EIR p. 5.3-17-20). The Approved Project would change the land use designation on certain parcels for development, however, none of the parcels currently have sensitive vegetation. Future development site - specific analysis would be required for development and could reveal unknown biological resources (GP EIR p. 5.3-20). The GP EIR determined that with implementation of MM B10-1 and applicable GP policies and compliance with RR B-1 through RR B-5, a Less than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur. The Approved Project would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waters because the GP would not change land use designations of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, and channels; thus, a less than significant impact would occur (GP EIR p. 5.3--20). The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would intensify development within the city, which could impact wildlife movement (GP EIR p. 5.3-20-5.3-21). Buildout of the Approved Project could affect wildlife Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 32 of 67 movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law. However, with the implementation of MM. BIO-1 and applicable GP policies and compliance with RR B-2, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. The city is not within a Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (GP EIR p. 5.3-21). Future development would be required to adhere to local, State, and federal laws and regulations governing the protection and preservation of wildlife, plants, and habitat. With adherence to local, State, and federal laws and regulations and because the city is not within an adopted NCCP/HCP area, impacts would be less than significant. GP EIR Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 is reproduced here. BI0-1 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. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions related to biological resources have not changed since the certification of the GP ETA. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in physical impacts on the environment. No impacts would occur_ The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR B-1 through RR B-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. It should be noted that GP EIR MM BIO-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: CUL-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Resolution No, 2024-072 Page 33 of 67 CUL--2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? CUL-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the city contains historical resources since its building stock is at least 45 years old. Implementation of development projects under the Approved Project have the potential to impact historical resources in the city. The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-1 through CUL--3 to reduce impacts related to historic resources. With compliance with RRs CUL-1 through CUL-6 and implementation of applicable GP policies and MM CUL-1 through CUL-3, the GP EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR p. 5A-26). The GP EIR determined that eight archeological resources were recorded in the city, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponeat site, and three historic isolates. The GP EIR determined that development involving ground disturbance within the city has the potential to impact ]mown and unknown archaeological resources. The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-4 through CULr6 to reduce impacts due to ground disturbance activities on cultural resources. With compliance with RR CULA and implementation of applicable GP policies and MM CUL-4 through CUL-7, the GP EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR p. 5.4--27). The GP EIR determined that development in accordance with the Approved Project would be limited to inEM files and previously disturbed land within an urban development; however, there is low potential for implementing development projects to encounter human remains. The Approved Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. With compliance with RR CUL-1, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.4-27-5.4- 28). The GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 are reproduced below, Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and stfikeett for deletions. 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 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 34 of 67 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. 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 dernolition 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 (NABS) 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 NABS 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. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 35 of 67 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 requited 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 witivn 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 and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation% Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (C)HP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (C)HP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a Native American monitor a1212roved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground-disturbirz construction and pre -construction activities in areas of high sensitivit r The archaeologist shall inform all construction 12ersonnel 12rior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the ro'ect's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and le al basis for the protection of sigaWcant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to paitigWate in this training, In the event that archaeological resources artifacts or features) are exposed durin ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated far significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource If the discovery proves to be significant, the long Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 36 of 67 term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribes where relevant-, this could include curation with a recogi2ized scientific or educational repository,transfer to the tribe or respectful reinterntnent in an area desirnated by the tribe. .-cal i-esatifees. in the event th*t "ehaeolagk-?�� 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 imtnediate 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. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction activities would not occur under the Modified Project. Additionally, the existing conditions related to cultural resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. Thus, the Modified Project would not impact historical resources or archeological resources or disturb human remains. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 37 of 67 The GP EIR RRs CUL-1 through CUL--6 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include any construction activities which have the potential to impact historical resources, archeological resources, and human remains. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. The GP EIR MMs CUL-1 though CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. 4.6 ENERGY According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: EN-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? EN-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.5, Energy, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project, with compliance with RR E-1 through RR E-4, RR E-6, and RR E-7 and the implementation of applicable GP policies related to energy, impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-19). The GP EIR determined that, with compliance with RR E-5 and implementation of applicable GP policies related to energy, impacts of the Approved Project related to a conflict or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-20). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs in the City. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction -related energy consumption would not occur under the Modified Project. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in physical impacts on the environment. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. The GP EIR RR E-1 through RR E--7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 38 of 67 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GEO-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction? iv. Landslides GEO-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? GEO-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 S-1-B of dze Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? GEO-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? GEO-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, the city'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 exist within the plan area. The city is subject to seismic ground shaking; however, future developments adherence to California Building Code and implementation of RR G-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. Similarly, impacts from seismic -related ground failure which include liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching would also be reduced to less than significant with adherence to the California Building Code (CBC), RR G-1, RR GH-2, and GP policies. Future development would comply with existing regulations, which includes preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a soil engineering evaluation and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level regarding soil erosion (GP EIR p 5.6-21). The city contains alluvial materials that have the potential for expansive soils and settlement and collapse of soils throughout the city, posing a hazard to Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 39 of 67 structures and people (GP EIR p 5.6-22). Implementation of RR G-1, RR GH-2, GP policies, CBC design code, and other methods, such as recompaction of engineered fill, would reduce the impact of expansive soils to less than significant. Although the potential for subsidence is low, the city has historically been affected by subsidence (GP EIR p. 5.6-22). With the continued groundwater storage and statutory commitments to sustainable groundwater management practices by Orange County Water District, impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant. The GP EIR concluded that the City has implemented RR G-3, which does not allow For installation of septic tanks, and future development would connect to the existing City sewer system (GP EIR p. 5.6-22-5.6-23). Therefore, with implementation of RR G-3 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project would result in future development that would include ground -disturbing activities which could potentially disturb unknown sensitive paleontological resources (GP EIR pp. 5.6-23). However, with implementation of RR G-1, RR G-2, and RR G-3 and MMs GEO-1 through GEO-3, significant impacts were reduced to less than significant. GP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 are reproduced below 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 (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. 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 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 40 of 67 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. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing geological and soils conditions have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not require development of any kind; therefore, no earthwork or ground -disturbing activities would occur. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR G-1 and RR G-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. It should be noted that GP EIR MMs GEO-1 though GEO-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the GP EIR the Approved Projectwould contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses consistent with the GP within the city. The Approved Project would implement MM GHG-1, comply with RRs GHG-1 through GHG-7, and implement GPU policies related to reducing GHG emissions to reduce impacts related to GHG emissions (GP EIR p. 5.7-34). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Approved Project would comply with RR GHG-1 through RR GHG-7 and GP policies related to GHG emissions to reduce impacts (GP EIR p. 5.7-38). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 41 of 67 The GP EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP FIR are represented in underline for additions and stfikeou for deletions. 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: ■ 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: r Administration and Staffing ■ Finance and Budgeting ■ Timelines for Measure Implementation ■ Community Outreach and Education r Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management s Tracking `fools Furthermore the following measures will be considered when the Cit, dates the Climate Action Plan: ■ Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations r Measure to increase carbon sinks ■ Standards for electric vehicle parking ■ Standards for construction projects Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions related to GHG have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. GHG emissions due to construction activities would not occur. The operational activities associated with long- term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 42 of 67 for residential uses. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, or result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The GP EIR analyzed impacts related to GHG emissions from full occupancy of units in the city, assuming full buildout under the General Plan. The Modified Project would not result in any increase in the occupancy levels analyzed in the GP EIR. Further, the Modified Project does not involve construction of any new units that that might lead to in an increase in GHG emissions. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The GP EIR RRs GHG-1 through GHG-3 and RR GHG-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The GP EIR RR GHG-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a utility project. The GP EIR RRs GHG-4 through GHG-6 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a transportation project. The Modified Project would only affect existing structures already developed in adherence with GP policies, and, as described in Section 2.1, the Modified Project is reaffirming existing law within the city. Therefore, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. The GP EIR MM GHG-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include a use that requires the tracking and monitoring of the City's GHG emissions. 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 14AZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 43 of 67 HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.8, Haf�ardr and Hatiardous Materials, of the GP EIR, residences within the city are exposed to levels of toxic releases from industrial facilities waste sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-36). The Approved Project would change land use designations so some industrial areas would be designated as industrial flex to allow cleaner industrial uses and a mix of other nonindustrial uses, and no expansion of industrial uses would occur. However, the Approved Project would introduce new residences near existing industrial uses in environmental justice (EJ) communities, but adherence to local, State, and federal policies regarding the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City contains elevated lead constructions in EJ communities, and the Approved Project would introduce new sensitive receptors to industrial uses (GP EIR p. 5.8-415.8-42). Implementation of GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. Buildings within the city contain asbestos -containing materials and lead - based paint that may accidentally be released; however, with compliance with RR HAZ-4 and implementation of applicable GP policies, impacts would be reduced to less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-41-5.8-42). The Approved Project would induce future development that would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials; however, these substances would be used in such small quantities and stored in a manner that would not pose a significant safety hazard (GP EIR p. 5.8-42-5.8-43). Adherence to existing local, state, and federal laws, emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority, RRs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. The city includes 355 hazardous materials sites, with only 63 active or open sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). Any future development would require environmental site assessment to ensure the project would not disturb hazardous materials. With implementation of RRs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant Part of the city is within John Wayne Airport QWA) safety compatibility Zone 6 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), and parts of the city contain areas where heights are limited pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (GP EIR p. 5.8-29-5.8-30). Projects approved under the proposed GP that fall within an identified AELUP and FAA zone would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. Thus, impacts are considered less than significant. With adherence to FAA, AELUP, GP policies, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project would induce population growth and traffic; the increases in traffic could adversely affect accident or natural disaster evacuation plans and routes (GP EIR p.5.8-45-5.8-46). However, the Approved Project would not result in substantial changes to circulation patterns, emergency access routes, or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Within implementation of General Plan policies, the Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 44 of 67 Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response, services, and evacuation plans and therefore impacts would be less than significant. The city is not within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and buildout of the Approved Project will not expose structures anal/or residence to wildfire danger; thus, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-29- 5.8-30). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; thus, no new sensitive receptors would be exposed to hazards or hazardous waste. Additionally, the existing conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR HAZ-1 and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.10 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows? HYD4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 45 of 67 HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would involve disturbance, construction, and operation of land uses that could generate pollutants affecting stormwater. However, the Approved Project would comply with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implement GP policies (Policy 1.7 of the Safety Element, Policy 3.5 of the Public Services Element, and Policy 4.6 of the Conservation Element) to reduce impacts on water quality (GP EIR p. 5.9-29-5.9-32). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would increase the demand on groundwater use but not interfere with groundwater recharge or management (GP EIR p. 5.9-33). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. The GP EIR identified that portions of the City are within inundation areas for the Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam; however, impacts due to inundation by the Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam were determined to be less than significant. (GP EIR p. 5.9-35-5.9-36). Additionally, the GP EIR identified that impacts due to seiche would be less than significant for dam inundation areas, and impacts of a tsunami would be negligible. (GP EIR p. 5.9-36). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RR HYD-6 and GP policies, impacts would he less than significant. The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern and utilize existing drainage facilities within the public rights -of -way. Additionally, the GP EIR identified that the city is mostly built out apart from a small number of lots that will be developed under Approved Project conditions (GP EIR 5.9-32). The GP EIR determined that impacts related to alteration of existing drainage patterns or streams would he less than significant. The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements that would ensure surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted. Additionally, the GP EIR identified that new development under the Approved Project would connect to the City's public water supply, and there would be no use of on -site wells for groundwater. The GP EIR determined that the increase in water demand due to development pursuant to the GP would not adversely impact the management of the basin (GP EIR p. 5.9-37). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implementation of GP policies, impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It would not result in development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The existing conditions related to hydrology and water quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The operational water demand under the Modified Project would be consistent with the water demand analyzed in the GP EIR for residential Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 46 of 67 uses. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The GP EIR RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LU-1 Physically divide an established community? LtT-? Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any Iand use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Plannin.g, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project is intended to guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan area through the year 2045 and beyond. The changes in the land use designations that would occur with implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the physical division of an established community (GP EIR p. 5.10-17-5.10-19). The Approved Project would enhance the character of the city for existing residents because no new roadways would bisect existing communities, associated street improvements would serve the existing neighborhoods, the Approved Project encourages infill development, and established General Plan policies. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. A portion of the city is within the JW,, s safety compatibility Zone 6 and within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, and a larger portion of the southeastern portion of the city is within Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 Obstruction Notification Area of JWA (GP EIR p. 5.10-19-5.10-20). Areas within an AELUP and FAA Zones land use designations would remain., and no new or more intense development is intended. Any project within an identified AELUP and FAA Zone would be required to comply with filing a project for a consistency determination with the ALUC, FAA airspace protection regulations, and local regulations. Furthermore, the Approved project would be consistent with goals of the Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS, and the Orange County Transportation Authority Congestion Management Plan (GP EIR p. 5.10-20-26). The GP EIR concluded that the approved project would not significantly conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, and with implementation of GP policies and RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions related to land use and planning have not changed since the certification Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 47 of 67 of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The Modified Project would only affect existing structures and, as described in Section 2.1, is reaffirming existing law within the city. It should be noted that the Modified Project would improve the connectivity of existing communities by improving the compatibility of existing uses and preserving the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods (Land Use Element Goal 3) through the prohibition of STRs within long-term residential neighborhoods. No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: MIN-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? MIN-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.11, Mineral Resources, of the GP EIR, most of the plan area is mapped Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. MRZ-1, areas where no significant mineral resources are present, are in the southeast of the city, and in the northeast of the City are MRZ-2, areas where significant mineral resources are known or very likely to occur (GP EIR 5.11-6-5.11-7). However, no mineral resource sectors and active or inactive mines are in the plan area. Additionally, the Approved Project would increase the demand for aggregate, and especially PCC- grade aggregate, in the Orange County-Temescal Valley P-C Region but would not decrease availability of mineral resources. Therefore, with adherence to GP policies, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact on mineral resources. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions related to mineral resources have not changed; the City's MRZs are consistent with the GP EIR and the City does not contain any active or inactive mines or mineral resource sectors (CDC 2024a, 2024b). The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 48 of 67 GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.13 NOISE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: N0I-1 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? N0I-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? N0I-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.12, Noise, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in an increase in development intensity to accommodate population and employment growth. Construction activities associated with the Approved Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of individual development projects that could affect sensitive receptors (GP EIR p. 5.12-30). The Approved Project would comply with RR N0I--2 and implement GP EIR MM N0I-1 and GP policies to minimize effects of construction -noise. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The GP EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would result in substantial traffic noise level increases on local roadway and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards. The GP EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Approved Project could place future noise sensitive land uses within areas that exceed the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. The GP EIR determined that with implementation of GP Noise Element policies, which would require new development within the airport's noise contours to be mitigated, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.12-47). The GP EIR Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-4 are reproduced below. 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 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 49 of 67 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. r 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 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 Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 50 of 67 maintain. construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA L,s. 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. 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 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. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. No development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city are required to implement the Modified Project. No impacts related to construction -related noise level increases would occur. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with RR NOI-3, which requires stationary noise sources to comply with the standards established in Section 18.312 of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in an increase in transportation noise. Operational noise Ievels associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational noise levels analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. The Modified Project would not place new residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions identified in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 51 of 67 GP FIR RRs N0I-1 and N0I-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include any construction activities. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GPU policies. GP EIR MMs N-1 and N-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require any construction activities to be implemented. GP EIR MM N-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project as the Modified Project does not include new residential uses and does not propose new residential uses along railroad lines. GP EIR MM N-4 is not applicable to the Modified Project as the Modified Project does not include industrial development and does not include construction activities. 4,14 POPULATION AND HOUSING According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: POP-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? POP-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housin8, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would increase the population within the plan area by 96,855 residence and would result in an increase of 36,490 residential units by 2045 (GP EIR p. 5.13-12-5.13-15). The City's projected population and residential units would exceed the Orange County COG's 2045 projection by 20 percent and 38 percent, respectively, and impacts are considered potentially significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would change land use designations of existing nonresidential land to residential uses, increasing the residential opportunities in selected areas. The Approved Project would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist and would not displace people and/or housing, no impact would occur. Buildout of the GP would exceed the Orange County COG's 2045 projects and no feasible mitigation measures exist to mitigate the population and housing growth. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It should be noted that STRs take homes out of the housing stock for full --time city residents, which forces development of housing elsewhere, leading to construction of unpermitted or "informal" housing (such as improper residential occupancy of garages, unpermitted additions to residential structures, etc.) or exacerbates existing residential overcrowding. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. The Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 52 of 67 prohibition of STRs would allow approximately 1,100 residential units to be available to full-time city residents that have otherwise been documented to presently be utilized for unpermitted STRs. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GPU EIR. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PS-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? I Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.14, Paablic SerUices, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would develop 36,261 housing units, result in a total of 360,077 residents and 170,416 jobs, and increase the demand for fire, police, school, and library services (GP EIR p. 5.14-28-5.14-47).The Approved Project concluded there are adequate funding sources for fire, police, school, and library services to meet the projected increase in public services demands. Development would require approval of a Building Plan Check, a Fire Master Plan, and would comply with the California Fire and Building Codes, California Health and Safety Code, City ordinances, and applicable national standards. Additionally, compliance with General plan policies and RR FP-1 would ensure adequate fire protection services to Santa Ana (GP EIR p. 5.14-285.14-47). Thus, impacts would be less than significant. The Santa Ana police may require project design features to improve security as conditions of approval, and adherence with goals and policies within the general plan would result in a less than significant impact. The Approved Project would lead to an increase in the student population within the city, though three of the four school districts within the city contain the capacity to accommodate the potential increase in students (GP EIR p. 5.14-41--5.14-43). Additionally, project -specific analysis with developmental fees and adherence to GP goals and policies and RR SS-1 would result in a less than significant impact. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 53 of 67 The increase in residents would increase the demand for library services; however, project -specific analysis with developmental fees and adherence to GP goals and policies and RR LS-1 would result in a less than significant impact (GP EIR p. 5.14-46-5.15-47). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would not introduce new residential units to the city nor directly or indirectly increase the city's population. The GP buildout, which includes the residential units illegally operating as STRs, and operation of the Approved Project were adequately analyzed in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR FP-1, RR SS-1, and LS-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4,16 RECREATION According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: REC-1 Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? REC-2 Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would lead to additional demands on parrs and recreational facilities (GP EIR p. 5.15-11-5.15-30). The GP EIR concluded that although funding sources for new parks and equipment would be sufficient, there is a lack of available land to develop new parks or expand existing facilities, and thus the Approved Project would exacerbate an existing shortage of recreation facilities. After compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of the GP policies, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, construction and/or expansion of new parks and recreation facilities could result in adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded, with the incorporation of GP policies, the Approved Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on recreation. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 54 of 67 Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would not result in greater conflicts to the City's parkland standards and recreational resources. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP FIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP FIR. GP EIR RR REC-1 and RR REC-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.17 TRANSPORTATION According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in detail in Section 5.16, Transportation, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in the improvement and expansion of the City's circulation system; these improvements would incorporate future networks and policies that would be consistent with the regional and local planning efforts. With the implementation of RR T-1 and applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.16-33-5.16-34). The GP FIR determined that the City's projected vehicle miles traveled (VM1) per service population (SP) would be less than the defined threshold of 15 percent below the existing county VMT/SP. With the implementation of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.16-35). The GP FIR determined that the Approved Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the City. Roadway improvements associated with the Approved Project would be made in accordance with the City's circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet the guidelines of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Approved Project would not result in Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 55 of 67 hazardous conditions, create conflicting uses, or interfere with emergency vehicle access. With implementation of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1 G-35). Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a conflict with regional or local circulation system planning. The operational traffic associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational traffic analyzed in the GP EIR because buildout of long-term rentals and permanent residences and their impacts to the circulation system had been evaluated under the certified GP EIR. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RRs T-1 and T-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: TCR-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider die significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project could cause substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources (TCR) that are 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). (GP EIR p. 5.17-10-5.17-12). A Sacred Lands File search yielded a positive result that Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 56 of 67 TCRs exist in the plan area, and a California Historical Resources Information System search identified 23 archaeological resources within 0.5 miles of the plan area. Furthermore, the City consulted with Native American Tribes, and sensitive areas with TCR were identified. The GP EIR determined that tivith implementation of RR CUL-1, RRTRC-1, and MMs CUL-4 through CUL-7, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Refer to Section 4.5, Caaltarral Resource , of this Addendum for reproduced GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Therefore, no earthwork or ground -disturbing activities would occur. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. GP EIR RR TCR-1 and RR CUL-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. Additionally, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. It should be noted that GP EIR MMs CUL-4 d7ough CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? U-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? U-3 Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? U-4 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? U-5 Comply with federal, state, and Iocal management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 57 of 67 Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would increase wastewater treatment, however the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has functioning and effective processes in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future development; and implementation of RR U-1 and RR U-2 and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, OCSD contains adequate capacity to serve wastewater collation and treatment in the city, and a less than significant impact would occur with implementation of RR U-3 and GP policies. Buildout under the Approved Project would increase demand for water services, potentially creating deficiencies or necessitating the need for improvement projects (GP EIR p. 5.18-36-5.18-38). With planning, Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), RR U-5 through RR U-7, and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant. The GP EIR concluded under full buildout of the Approved Project, the City contains adequate water supplies during normal -dry and multiple -dry year scenarios, and with implementation of RR U-5 and RR U-7, impacts would be less than significant. The city is largely built out; however, intensification of development could increase park -flow runoff (GP EIR p. 5.18-47). Improvements identified in the GP EIR and Orange County Public Works CIP ensures regional drainage improvements, and project -specific stormwater design features and implementation of RR HYD -4 and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. The GP EIR concluded the projected increase in solid waste would be accommodated by existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities, and future development would comply with local and state policies, and with implementation of RR U-7 and RR U-8 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.18-52-5.18-53). The GP EIR concluded the forecast increase in electricity is within the forecasted demand in SoCal Edison's service area and would not require additional electricity supplies and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.18-63--5.18-64). Additionally, the increase in natural gas demands are within the forecast demand in the SoCalGas service area, and impacts would be less than significant with implantation of RR U-10, RR U-11, and GP policies. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Since the Modified Project would not require development of any kind and would not result in unplanned population growth (directly or indirectly), no increases in demands to utilities and service systems would occur. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 58 of 67 GP EIR RR U-1 through RR U-11, RR HYD-1, and RR HYD-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City's ability to implement applicable GP policies. 4.20 WILDFIRE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: WF-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? WF-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? WF-3 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? VT-4 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-ftte slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR As discussed in Section 8.2, `wildfire, of the GP EIR, the City of Santa Ana is not in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and no area within the city is in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (GP EIR p. 8-2). The Approved Project would allow for development within the City; however, because the City is not within an SRA, very high FHSZ, or WUI, no impacts would occur. The GP EIR concluded the remaining wildfire questions in Appendix G are not relevant to the GP FIR. Analysis of the Modified Project The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions for wildfire hazard indicators (SRA, FHSZ and WUI) have not changed; the city is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and does not contain any land with a very high FHSZ; and the City does not contain any areas in an WUI (CAL FIRE 2024; USDA 2024). The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 59 of 67 M-1 Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elitniriate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? M-2 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) M-3 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR This section was not included in the GP EIR. Analysis of the Modified Project Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, it can be determined that there are no new circumstances that require major revisions to the GP EIR, and the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. As previously discussed, the Modified Project entails an amendment to the SAMC that would add Article = to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would continue the City's practice of requiring residential units illegally operating as STRs to cease and revert to the permitted uses identified under the existing underlying land use designation and zoning through code enforcement. Operation of long-term rentals of permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Because the Modified Project is not a development project, the Modified Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment related to impacts to biological resources, to eliminate important examples of major California history or prehistory, or result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effect on human beings. Additionally, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe cumulatively significant impact as there are no new impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Resolution No, 2024-072 Page 60 of 67 5, Findinas As indicated in this Addendum, the impacts of the Modified Project have already been adequately identified and addressed in the GP EIR, and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the GP EIR. Impacts beyond those identified in the EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the Modified Project, which would still be subject to all applicable, previously required mitigation measures from the GP EIR. Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Modified Project would result in significant environmental impacts not previously studied in the EIR, and accordingly, the project changes would not result in any conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162. Thus, a subsequent EIR is not required for the changes to the project, and the City adopts this Addendum to the City of Santa Ana GP Update EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 61 of 67 Thsrpa,ge irateratzorzally left blank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 62 of 67 6. List of Preparers CITY OF SANTA ANA Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager Ricardo Soto, AICP, Principal Planner PLACEWORKS Mary 'Teague, Managing Principal Mafia Durand, Associate Principal Christhi Mrosla, Associate Emma Haines, Associate Angel Castro, Project Planner Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 63 of 67 Thi jiage intentionalty to hlank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 64 of 67 7. References California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2024a, July 10 (accessed). Mineral Land Classification. https: / /maps. conservation. ca.gov/cgs /informationwarchouse /index.httnl?map=mlc. 2024b, July 10 (accessed). Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.httnL California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2024, April 1 (accessed). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. http s:/ / experience.arcgis. com/ experience /03beab85l l8l 4c79a0e4eab fOd3e7247 /. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https: / /v wwarcg.is.com/apps /webappviewer/index.httnl?id=465dfd3d8O7c46cc8c8057116fl aacaa. Santa Ana, City of 2024, July 9 (accessed). Zoning Map. https://-,vww.santa-ana.org/documents/ zoning -map/. 2021, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. 2020, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. United States Forest Service (USFD). 2024, July 10 (accessed). Wildland Urban Interface: 2020. https://data -usfs.hub.arcgis.com/documents/7804d89ed I O94ccb9aae7 53228e8d89a/explore. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 65 of 67 Thi page intentionally l& blank. Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 66 of 67 Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short -Term Rental Prohibition ordinance Resolution No. 2024-072 Page 67 of 67