HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-023 - Development Agreement Between the Community Redevelopment AgencyRESOLUTION NO. 2011-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND CONSENTING TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND SANTA
ANA STATION DISTRICT, LLC AND MAKING
CERTAIN OTHER FINDINGS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
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. The Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Santa Ana
("Agency") entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement with Santa
Ana Station District, LLC ("Developer'), dated as of June 7, 2010 ("DDA"), a copy of
which is on file with the Agency, under which the Developer was to develop certain
property identified therein as the "Site" located in the City of Santa Ana ("City").
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code § 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") the City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("Council")
certified Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") No. 2006-02 for Transit Zoning Code
(SD 84A and SD 84B) and the development of that certain property identified in the DDA
as the Site (the "Station District Project"), a copy of which is on file with the City (SCH No.
2006071100), on June 7, 2010.
C. The Council and the Agency, respectively, adopted CEQA Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MMRP") in connection with approval of the DDA on June 7, 2010.
D. The DDA provided that the Site would be conveyed to the Developer and
Developer would develop the Site in phases, including the construction of affordable
housing units, as more particularly set out in the Scope of Development attached and
incorporated into the DDA.
E. On July 8, 2010, the unincorporated association "Friends of the Lacy
Historic Neighborhood" filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the City and Agency
challenging the certification of the EIR and approval of the TZC, the Station District
Project and the related purchase and demolition of certain structures in the Lacy
Resolution No. 2011-023
Page 1 of 4
Neighborhood in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010-00388033-CU-WM-
CXC (the "Litigation").
F. The Parties have mutually agreed that settlement is the most efficient and
practical way to resolve the Litigation and have proposed a settlement agreement to
resolve and settle all claims related to the Litigation ("Settlement Agreement").
G. The parties now deem it in their best interests to amend and restate the
Scope of Development as set forth in the proposed First Amendment to Disposition and
Development Agreement in the form submitted herewith ("First Amendment').
H. All actions required by all applicable law with respect to the proposed First
Amendment have been taken in an appropriate and timely manner
1. The DDA as amended by the First Amendment would assist in the
alleviation or removal of blighting conditions and provide housing for low- or moderate-
income persons.
J. The Agency has adopted an Implementation Plan pursuant to CRL Section
33490, which sets forth the objective of providing housing to satisfy the needs and
desires of various constituent elements of the community.
K. The DDA as amended by the First Amendment furthers the goals of the
Agency set forth in the Implementation Plan as it will facilitate the creation of affordable
housing which will serve the residents of the neighborhood and the City.
L. The DDA as amended by the First Amendment would assist in the
alleviation or removal of blighting conditions and provide housing for low- or moderate-
income persons and would further the goals of the Implementation Plan by providing for
the development of such housing.
M. The City Council has duly considered all terms and conditions of the
proposed First Amendment and believes that the DDA as amended by the First
Amendment is in the best interests of the Agency and the City and the health, safety, and
welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of
applicable State and local law requirements.
Section 2. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
this reference.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that there have been no
substantial changes proposed in the Station District Project as a result of the new Scope of
Development or the circumstances under which the Station District Project is undertaken, and
there is no new information with respect to the Project, which would require any major revisions
in the Final EIR pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Resolution No. 2011-023
Page 2 of 4
Section 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Station District Project as defined in the new Scope of
Development, attached as Exhibit "A".
Section 5. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the MMRP adopted by
the Agency on June 7, 2010 remains in effect.
Section 6. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the terms of the
Settlement Agreement do not require revisions to the Final EIR or further environmental analysis
either because the terms do not involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial
increase in the severity of an impact, and/or have no potential to result in a direct or indirect
physical change in the environment, and/or are otherwise exempt from CEQA.
Section 7. The City Council hereby finds and determines that, based upon substantial
evidence provided in the record before it, the consideration for the Agency's conveyances real
property to the Developer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the DDA as amended by the
First Amendment is not less than the fair reuse value at the use and with the covenants and
conditions and development costs authorized by the DDA.
Section 8. The City Council hereby finds and determines that, based upon substantial
evidence provided in the record before it, the First Amendment is consistent with the provisions
and goals of the Implementation Plan.
Section 9. The City Council hereby consents to the approval by the Agency of the
First Amendment in substantially the form presented to the Agency, subject to such revisions as
may be made by the Executive Director of the Agency or his or her designee. A copy of the
First Amendment when executed by the Agency shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Section 10. The Executive Director and the Agency Secretary are hereby authorized to
execute and attest the First Amendment, including any related attachments, on behalf of the
Agency. Copies of the final form of the First Amendment, when duly executed and attested,
shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 11. The Executive Director (or his/her duly authorized representative) is further
authorized to implement the First Amendment and take all further actions and execute all
documents referenced therein and/or necessary and appropriate to carry out the First
Amendment. The Executive Director (or his/her duly authorized representative) is hereby
authorized to the extent necessary during the implementation of the First Amendment to make
technical or minor changes thereto after execution, as necessary to properly implement and
carry out the First Amendment, provided the changes shall not in any manner materially affect
the rights and obligations of the Agency.
Section 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2011-023
Page 3 of 4
ADOPTED this 18th day of April 2011.
v
arlos Busta
Acting Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Byt4raka
City Attorney
Councilmember
YES: Councilmembers: Benavides, Bustamante, Martinez, Tinaiero (4)
NOES: Councilmembers: None (0)
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None (0)
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: Alvarez, Pulido, Sarmiento (3)
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution
No. 2011-023 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
on April 18, 2011.
Date: y -6 br=1
Clerk of the City Coun
Resolution No. 2011-023
Page 4 of 4
REVISED STATION
DISTRICT PROJECT AND
“FRIENDS OF LACY”
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
Findings of Fact/
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M20
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
April 18, 2011
EXHIBIT A
Contents
CHAPTER 1Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
CHAPTER 2CEQA Findings ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
CHAPTER 3Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ............................................................... 3-1
3.1Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3Selection of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4Project Alternative Findings .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.4.1Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code
Analyzed in the Draft EIR .............................................................................. 3-2
3.4.2Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code
Analyzed in the Draft EIR .............................................................................. 3-9
3.4.3Findings on Alternatives that were Considered but Eliminated
from Detailed Analysis in the Draft EIR ................................................... 3-14
3.4.4Additional Findings ....................................................................................... 3-16
CHAPTER 4Findings on the Settlement Agreement and the Revised Station District
Project ..................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2Previously Approved Station District Project ............................................................. 4-1
4.3Revised Station District Project .................................................................................... 4-1
4.4Other Settlement Agreement terms .............................................................................. 4-2
4.5Finding On Revised Station District Project ............................................................... 4-3
4.6Findings On Other Settlement Agreement Terms ..................................................... 4-3
4.7Other Related Findings................................................................................................... 4-4
CHAPTER 5Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................................ 5-5
5.1Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ................................................................... 5-5
5.3Overriding Considerations ............................................................................................. 5-8
Table
Table 1-1Summary of Transit Zoning Code Potential Net Change .............................................................. 1-3
Table 2-1CEQA Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3-1Alternative 2 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-2Alternative 3 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 3-7
Table 4-1Properties to Be Rehabilitated/Demolished Under the Revised Station District
Project ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-2
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iii
CHAPTER 1Introduction
On June 7, 2010, the City of Santa Ana (“City”) certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) and the development of certain properties owned by the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana (“Agency”) in the Station District (the “Station District
Project”), in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.). The Agency has discretionary approval power over the
Station District Project and is, therefore, a Responsible Agency under CEQA. As such, prior to reaching
a decision on Transit Zoning Code (“TZC”) and Station District project, both the City and the Agency
considered the environmental effects of the project as shown in the EIR and adopted specific findings.
On July 8, 2010, the unincorporated association “Friends of the Lacy Historic Neighborhood” filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the City and Agency challenging the certification of the EIR and
approval of the TZC, the Station District Project and the related purchase and demolition of certain
structures in the Lacy Neighborhood in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010-00388033-
CU-WM-CXC (the “Litigation”). On April 18, 2011, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Settlement Agreement to resolve and settle all claims related to the Litigation. The Settlement
Agreement relates to and affects the development of the Station District Project, also referred to herein
as the “Developer Project.”
As further discussed in Chapter 4, the Settlement Agreement does not result in any substantial changes to
the Station District Project or the circumstances under which the Station District Project is undertaken
that would require any major revisions in the Final EIR, and there is no new information with respect to
the Project that would require such revisions. Additionally, no other terms of the Settlement Agreement
would require revisions to the Final EIR or further environmental analysis because the terms do not
involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact,
and/or have no potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and/or are
otherwise exempt from CEQA.
Therefore, this document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that
were adopted by the City and the Agency pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code
Sections 21002.1(b) and (d), 21081 and 21081.5 and Sections 15091, 15093, and 15096, respectively, of
the State Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) on June 7, 2010. All of these
Findings remain in effect as they apply to the Transit Zoning Code and apply equally to the modified
Station District Project as they did before adoption of the modifications.
This document provides specific additional Findings related to the modified Station District Project and
the Settlement Agreement in Chapter 4.
This document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
including the identified significant impacts.
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the project as originally proposed and evaluates them in
relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Agency must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project
would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-
significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation
measures.
Chapter 4 Presents Findings related to the modified Station District Project and the
Settlement Agreement.
Chapter 5 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance
with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the Project
that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The Transit Zoning Code project area is located in the central urban core of the City of Santa Ana and
comprises over 100 blocks and 450 acres. The project is located in the area west of Interstate 5, north of
First Street, and between Grand Avenue and Flower Street and south of Civic Center Drive in the City
of Santa Ana in Orange County, California.
The Transit Zoning Code provides new zoning for all of the properties contained within its boundary
with the exception of those properties zoned M1—Light Industrial or M2—Heavy Industrial. These M1
and M2 properties would retain their existing zoning, but would be covered by an overlay zone that
allows for the option of future mixed-use development to be exercised at the discretion of the property
owner. The Transit Zoning Code provides for the integration of new infill development into existing
neighborhoods, allows for the reuse of existing buildings, supports mixed-use development, provides a
transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to reduce vehicle trips, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and support the addition of new transit infrastructure, and provides an
economic development stimulus.
Within the boundary of the Transit Zoning Code, the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) owns forty-nine
parcels comprising approximately seven noncontiguous acres. The Agency/City is pursuing the potential
acquisition of twenty additional properties within the immediate vicinity of the forty-nine parcels
mentioned above for the purposes of completing the assemblage of properties on those blocks in which
the Agency already has majority ownership, as well as to secure property to provide for additional open
space. The acquisition of these additional properties may lead to demolition and/or relocation of existing
structures, as well as the potential relocation of any existing residents.
The Agency and the Developer propose to redevelop these properties. The Developer concept for these
properties includes the development of a maximum of 155 rental units and a maximum of 65 for-sale
units—a total of 220 new residential units. A component of this residential development will be
affordable pursuant to the County of Orange‘s criteria for low-to-moderate income housing. The
City/Agency is also pursuing the addition of new public open space that could include a public park, a
public tot lot, and a 10,000 square foot community building. The redevelopment of these properties
requires the demolition of approximately 30,243 square feet of building area, on fifteen Agency-owned
properties.
The City will amend the current General Plan to permit these new land uses and amend the Zoning Code
to establish development standards that implement the project. These amendments will allow the City to
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
1-2
Considerations
Chapter 1 Introduction
provide a framework for the development of compact, transit-oriented development that contains a mix
of residential, commercial, and professional uses in order to address the City’s and the region’s goals of
providing sites for housing in already urbanized locations that are adjacent to transit, thereby reducing
vehicle trips, stimulating investment in underutilized land, and improving the jobs/housing balance
within the City. This will lead to potential development of approximately 4,075 residential units,
387,000 sf of retail development, and an additional 15.5 acres of open space within the City. Adoption of
this project would allow the City to consider subsequent actions consistent with these updates in the
General Plan and Land Use designations. Table 3-1 (Summary of Transit Zoning Code [SD84A and
SD84B] Development Potential) lists the overall potential net change that would occur as a result of the
project area.
In terms of net development, the Transit Zoning Code would allow for the potential development of
approximately 351,000 square feet (sf) of retail development and the addition of new open space within
the City. Creation of this Transit Zoning Code area would allow the City to consider subsequent actions
consistent with these updates. Table 1-1 (Summary of Transit Zoning Code Potential Net Change) lists
the overall potential net change that could occur as a result of any new construction built pursuant to the
standards contained within the Transit Zoning Code.
Table 1-1 Summary of Transit Zoning Code Potential Net Change
Land Use Type Potential Gross Development Existing Uses to be Converted Potential Net Development
Residential (units) 4,272197 4,075
Retail (sf) 693,00306,00387,000
Industrial (sf) 90,0001,080,000(990,000)
Commercial (sf) 0 124,000(124,000)
Civic (sf) 8,00029,000(21,000)
Open Space (sf) 680,0000 680,000
Surface Parking Lot (sf) 67,000 1,839,00(1,772,000)
The key procedural actions related to the Transit Zoning Code and CEQA include:
¦
Circulate Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (30 days) July 20, 2006-August 22, 2006
¦
Filed NOC and Circulated Draft EIR February 2, 2010
¦
Conducted Scoping Meeting at February 22, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting
¦
Re-Circulated Alternatives Section/extended DEIR review period, February 24, 2010- April 12,
2010
¦
Conducted Scoping Meeting at March 22, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
1-3
Considerations
CHAPTER 2CEQA Findings
2.1INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are
required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each
significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR (“Finding 1”).
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency (“Finding 2”).
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives in the EIR (“Finding 3”).
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid
or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a
project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where
the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)[2],[3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another
factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52
Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243
Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its
actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the
information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of
the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may
be considered “acceptable.”
The California Supreme Court has stated that, “the wisdom of approving any development project, a
delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local
officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply
it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576
[276 Cal. Rptr. 401]).
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-1
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the EIR that were reduced
to less-than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project.
Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Final EIR, the staff reports to the Planning
Commission and City Council, and the record of proceedings. Key discussions that support the Findings
from the Final EIR are provided in “Evidence Supporting Finding.” However, other evidence may be
contained in the overall record of the project to further support the finding.
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the Project
findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, 20 Civic Center
Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, California 92702. The custodian for these documents is Lucy Linnaus. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines
§15091(e).
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
2-2
Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
AVQ
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL UALITY
Impact 4.1-3 Long-term The City believes that compliance with MM4.1-1 Proposed new structures shall be Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development MM4.1-1 which requires that design of the designed to maximize the use of textured or
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the proposed structures primarily include the other non-reflective exterior surfaces and
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code, and use of textured or other nonreflective non-reflective glass. Building materials shall
project which would avoid or substantially
associated infrastructure exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass be reviewed by the City of Santa Ana prior to
lessen the significant environmental effect as
will reduce daytime light and glare. issuance of building permits for each project.
improvements would result in
identified in the final EIR.
new sources of increased
daytime glare.
Discussion is provided on page 4.1-24 of
the FEIR (Volume I).
Impact 4.1-4 Long-term The City believes that compliance with MM4.1-2 All exterior lighting and advertising Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development MM4.1-2 and MM4.1-3, which require that (including signage) shall be directed onto the
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the exterior lighting (including signs) be specific location intended for illumination
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code would directed on-site only and be shielded from (e.g., parking lots, driveways, and walkways)
project which would avoid or substantially
result in new sources of off-site uses and also requires the and shielded away from adjacent properties
lessen the significant environmental effect as
spillover light.
submission of a lighting plan for approval and public rights-of-way to minimize light
identified in the final EIR.
spillover onto adjacent areas.
by the City prior to the issuance of a
building permit, will eliminate new sources
MM4.1-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit
of spillover light.
for a specific development project, the
applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the
City for review and approval. The plan shall
Discussion is provided on page 4.1-25
specify the lighting type and placement to
and 26 of the FEIR (Volume I).
ensure that the effects of security and other
outdoor lighting are minimized on adjacent
uses and do not create spillover effects. The
plan shall specifically incorporate the
following design features:
All projects shall incorporate project
¦
design features to shield light and/or glare
from vehicles entering or exiting parking
lots and structures that face sensitive
uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, senior
housing, or other residential properties)
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-3
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
by providing barriers so that light from
vehicle headlights would not illuminate
off-site sensitive uses.
All projects shall incorporate project
¦
design features to provide landscaping,
physical barriers, screening, or other
buffers to minimize project-generated
illumination from entering off-site areas
and to prevent glare or interference with
vehicular traffic, in accordance with the
City’s Municipal Code.
Impact 4.1-5 Long-term Potential development of future buildings MM4.1-4 For any proposed structure that Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
cumulative development within the Transit Village Zone (which would exceed four stories in height,
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the allow building heights up to 20-stories) applicants shall submit a site-specific
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A would cause significant impacts from shade/shadow report with renderings
project which would avoid or substantially
and SD 84B) would result in shade/shadow. Due to the uncertainty of representing the level of shade/shadows
lessen the significant environmental effect as
a substantial increase in the exact design specifications of future associated with the proposed development at
identified in the final EIR. Specifically, MM4.1-4
shade/shadows over buildings, it is possible that impacts would the following times: 9:00 .., 12:00 ..,
AMPM
would reduce shade/shadow issues through
sensitive uses.
occur, even after the implementation of 3:00 .. PST for the both the winter and
PM
the feasible design recommendations set forth
MM4.1-4. Therefore, this impact is summer solstices. An additional rendering for
in required studies.
considered significant and unavoidable.
the 5:00 .. PST time period shall be
PM
Finding 3
prepared for the summer solstice period.
Despite these changes, impacts would remain
Typically, a variety of criteria are used to
Discussion is provided on page 4.1-26
significant. The City finds that specific
determine the significance of a shadow
and 27 of the FEIR (Volume I).
economic, social, or other considerations make
impact, including the following:
infeasible additional mitigation. Specifically, no
Affected land use (criticality of direct
¦
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
sunlight for the use)
that would avoid or substantially reduce this
Duration (hours per day in shadow)
¦
impact.
Time of day (critical time period for direct
¦
sunlight)
Season (time of year use would be
¦
shadowed)
Extent (percentage of use that would be
¦
2-4 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
shadowed)
Preexisting condition (shadow condition
¦
due to existing buildings, landscaping, or
other features)
Type (solid or dappled shadow)
¦
The report shall include any feasible design
considerations that would reduce the extent of
shadows cast by a proposed structure. The
analysis and the project design plans shall be
forwarded to the Planning and Building
Agency for review and approval.
Air Quality
Impact 4.2-5 Construction The City believes that the construction MM4.2-7 Project applicants shall require by Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
activities associated with the would generate air pollutant emissions, contract specifications that all diesel-powered
The City finds that changes or alterations have
construction of individual including CO, NO, and PM, for which equipment used will be retrofitted with after-
been required in, or incorporated into, the
X10
projects within the Transit the Basin is currently in nonattainment. treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to
project which would avoid or substantially
Zoning Code area, including The City further believes that the the extent that they are readily available in the
lessen the significant environmental effect as
the Developer project, would implementation of MM4.2-7 through South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications
identified in the final EIR. Specifically, MM4.2-7
contribute substantially to an MM4.2-20 will reduce the emissions of shall be included in project construction
through MM4.2-20 will reduce project impacts
existing or projected air these pollutants but not a less than documents, which shall be reviewed by the
from the emission of air pollutants, although
significant level.
quality violation for criteria air City of Santa Ana prior to issuance of a
impacts will remain significant.
pollutants. grading permit.
Finding 3
MM4.2-8 Project applicants shall require by
Discussion is provided on pages 4.3-3
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
contract specifications that all heavy-duty
through 4.2-28 to 33 of the FEIR (Volume
other considerations make infeasible additional
diesel-powered equipment operating and
I). In addition, Appendix B provides further
mitigation. Specifically, no additional feasible
refueling at the project site use low-NO
evidence supporting this impact and its
X
mitigation measures exist that would avoid or
diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily
associated findings.
substantially reduce this impact.
available and cost effective (up to 125 percent
of the cost of California Air Resources Board
diesel) in the South Coast Air Basin (this does
not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to
and from the project site). Contract
specifications shall be included in project
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-5
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
construction documents, which shall be
reviewed by the City of Santa Ana prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
MM4.2-9 Project applicants shall require by
contract specifications that alternative fuel
construction equipment (i.e., compressed
natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and
unleaded gasoline) be utilized to the extent
that the equipment is readily available and
cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin.
Contract specifications shall be included in
project construction documents, which shall
be reviewed by the City of Santa Ana prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
MM4.2-10 Project applicants shall require by
contract specifications that construction
equipment engines be maintained in good
condition and in proper tune per
manufacturer’s specification for the duration
of construction. Contract specifications shall
be included in project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the
City of Santa Ana prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
MM4.2-11 Project applicants shall require by
contract specifications that construction
operations rely on the electricity infrastructure
surrounding the construction site rather than
electrical generators powered by internal
combustion engines to the extent feasible.
Contract specifications shall be included in
project construction documents, which shall
be reviewed by the City of Santa Ana prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
MM4.2-12 As required by South Coast Air
2-6 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Quality Management District Rule 403—
Fugitive Dust, all construction activities that
are capable of generating fugitive dust are
required to implement dust control measures
during each phase of project development to
reduce the amount of particulate matter
entrained in the ambient air. These measures
include the following:
Application of soil stabilizers to inactive
¦
construction areas
Quick replacement of ground cover in
¦
disturbed areas
Watering of exposed surfaces three times
¦
daily
Watering of all unpaved haul roads three
¦
times daily
Covering all stock piles with tarp
¦
Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved
¦
roads
Post signs on-site limiting traffic to
¦
15 miles per hour or less
Sweep streets adjacent to the project site
¦
at the end of the day if visible soil material
is carried over to adjacent roads
Cover or have water applied to the
¦
exposed surface of all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials prior
to leaving the site to prevent dust from
impacting the surrounding areas
Install wheel washers where vehicles
¦
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
roads to wash off trucks and any
equipment leaving the site each trip
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-7
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
MM4.2-13 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that construction-
related equipment, including heavy-duty
equipment, motor vehicles, and portable
equipment, shall be turned off when not in
use for more than 30 minutes. Diesel-fueled
commercial motor vehicles with gross
vehicular weight ratings of greater than
10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in
use for more than 5 minutes. Contract
specifications shall be included in the
proposed project construction documents,
which shall be approved by the City of Santa
Ana.
MM4.2-14 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that construction
parking be configured to minimize traffic
interference during the construction period
and, therefore, reduce idling of traffic.
Contract specifications shall be included in
the proposed project construction documents,
which shall be approved by the City of Santa
Ana.
MM4.2-15 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that temporary traffic
controls are provided, such as a flag person,
during all phases of construction to maintain
smooth traffic flow. Contract specifications
shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be
approved by the City of Santa Ana.
MM4.2-16 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that construction
activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial
system by scheduled to off-peak hours
2-8 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
(9:00 .. to 3:00 ..). Contract
AMPM
specifications shall be included in the
proposed project construction documents,
which shall be approved by the City of Santa
Ana.
MM4.2-17 Upon issuance of building or
grading permits, whichever is issued earliest,
notification shall be mailed to owners and
occupants of all developed land uses within
¼ mile of any project within the Transit Zoning
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) boundaries
greater than four stories in height or 25,000 sf
in area providing a schedule for major
construction activities that will occur through
the duration of the construction period. In
addition, the notification will include the
identification and contact number for a
community liaison and designated
construction manager that would be available
on site to monitor construction activities. The
construction manager shall be responsible for
complying with all project requirements
related to PM generation. The construction
10
manager will be located at the on-site
construction office during construction hours
for the duration of all construction activities.
Contract information for the community liaison
and construction manager will be located at
the construction office, City Hall, the police
department, and a sign on site.
MM4.2-18 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that the architectural
coating (paint and primer) products used
would have a VOC rating of 125 grams per
liter or less. Contract specifications shall be
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-9
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Santa Ana.
MM4.2-19 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that materials that do
not require painting be used during
construction to the extent feasible. Contract
specifications shall be included in the
proposed project construction documents,
which shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Santa Ana.
MM4.2-20 The developer shall require by
contract specifications that pre-painted
construction materials be used to the extent
feasible. Contract specifications shall be
included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Santa Ana.
Impact 4.2-6 Operation of The City believes that the future operation MM4.2-21 As individual components of the Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
the proposed project would of the proposed project would generate Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
The City finds that changes or alterations have
exceed South Coast Air emissions that exceed the thresholds of are implemented, an air quality impact
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Quality Management District significance recommended by the analyses will be completed to determine their
project which would avoid or substantially
standards for VOC, NO, CO, SCAQMD for CO, NO, ROG, and PM. independent significance levels. Mitigation is
lessen the significant environmental effect as
XX10
and PMand would result in Implementation of MM4.2-21through to be incorporated at the individual
identified in the final EIR. Specifically, MM4.2-
10
a projected air quality MM4.21-36 will reduce pollutant emissions component level to bring the individual
21through MM4.21-36 will reduce pollutant
violation.
but not below a level of significance. Said components to less than significant on a site-
emissions, but not below a level of significance.
by-site basis.
mitigation measures refer to stationary
Finding 3
sources of pollution (through building
MM4.2-22 Prior to issuance of a building
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
energy efficiency). However, the
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
other considerations make infeasible additional
substantial source of operational
the design of the proposed buildings or
mitigation. Specifically, no additional feasible
pollutants is emitted by mobile sources
structures exceeds current Title 24
mitigation measures exist that would avoid or
such as cars, truck, and delivery vehicles.
requirements (Title 24, Part 6 of the California
substantially reduce this impact. The majority
Code of Regulations; The Energy
of the operational impact results from mobile
Commission adopted the 2008 Standards on
Discussion is provided on pages 4.2-33 to
sources such as cars, trucks, and delivery
2-10 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
37 of the FEIR (Volume I). In addition, April 23, 2008, and the Building Standards vehicles. There are no trip reduction measures
Appendices B, G, and I provide further Commission approved them for publication on or advances in vehicle emission technology
evidence supporting this impact and its September 11, 2008. The 2008 Residential that could be implemented with effective and
associated findings. reliable results.
Compliance Manual was adopted by the
Commission on December 17, 2008, and the
2008 Non-residential Compliance Manual was
adopted January 14, 2009.Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Non
Residential Buildings, as amended November
1, 2005; Cool Roof Coatings performance
standards as amended September 11, 2006)
by a minimum of 20 percent, subject to review
by the County Building Official.
Documentation of compliance with this
measure shall be provided to the Planning
Department and Building Official for review
and approval prior to issuance of the permit.
Installation of the identified design features or
equipment will be confirmed by the County
Building Official prior to certificate of
occupancy. Any combination of the following
design features may be used to fulfill this
mitigation provided that the total increase in
efficiency meets or exceeds 20 percent:
Increase in insulation such that heat
¦
transfer and thermal bridging is minimized
Limit air leakage through the structure or
¦
within the heating and cooling distribution
system to minimize energy consumption
Incorporate dual-paned or other energy
¦
efficient windows
Incorporate energy efficient space
¦
heating and cooling equipment
Incorporate energy efficient light fixtures
¦
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-11
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
¦ Incorporate energy efficient appliances
Incorporate energy efficient domestic hot
¦
water systems
Incorporate solar panels into the electrical
¦
system
Incorporate cool roofs/light-colored
¦
roofing
Or other measures that will increase the
¦
energy efficiency of building envelope in a
manner that when combined with the
other options listed above exceeds
current Title 24 Standards (Title 24, Part
6 of the California Code of Regulations;
Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non Residential
Buildings, as amended November 1,
2005; Cool Roof Coatings performance
standards as amended September 11,
2006) by a minimum of 20 percent.
MM4.2-23 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall provide a
landscape plan for the Project that includes
shade trees around main buildings,
particularly along southern elevations where
practical, and will not interfere with loading
dock locations or other operational
constraints. Documentation of compliance
with this measure shall be provided to the City
Building Official for review and approval.
MM4.2-24 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
the proposed building or structure designs
incorporate exterior storage areas for
recyclables and green waste and adequate
2-12 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
recycling containers located in public areas.
Documentation of compliance with this
measure shall be provided to the City Building
Official for review and approval. Installation of
the identified design features or equipment
will be confirmed by the City Building Official
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
MM4.2-25 The applicant shall provide
education and publicity about reducing waste
and available recycling services to future
tenants. The education and publicity materials
shall be provided to the City for review and
approval by the Planning Department.
MM4.2-26 All showerheads, lavatory faucets,
and sink faucets within the residential units
shall comply with the California Energy
Conservation flow rate standards.
MM4.2-27 Low-flush toilets shall be installed
within all commercial and residential
(including Congregate Care) units as
specified in California State Health and Safety
Code Section 17921.3.
MM4.2-28 All commercial/industrial/common
area irrigation areas shall be capable of being
operated by a computerized irrigation system
which includes an onsite weather station/ET
gage capable of reading current weather data
and making automatic adjustments to
independent run times for each irrigation
valve based on changes in temperature, solar
radiation, relative humidity, rain, and wind. In
addition, the computerized irrigation system
shall be equipped with flow-sensing
capabilities, thus automatically shutting down
the irrigation system in the event of a mainline
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-13
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
break or broken head. These features will
assist in conserving water, eliminating the
potential of slope failure due to mainline
breaks, and eliminating over-watering and
flooding due to pipe and/or head breaks.
MM4.2-29 Landscape designers shall ensure
that Project landscaping of
commercial/industrial/common areas uses
drought-tolerant and smog-tolerant trees,
shrubs, and groundcover to ensure long-term
viability and conserve water and energy.
MM4.2-30 Landscape designers shall ensure
that the landscape plan includes drought
resistant trees, shrubs, and groundcover
within the parking lot and perimeter.
MM4.2-31 Project designers shall ensure that
design features incorporate light-colored
roofing materials that will deflect heat away
from the building and conserve energy.
MM4.2-32 The Project designers shall ensure
that designs include all illumination elements
to have controls to allow selective use as an
energy conservation measure.
MM4.2-33 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
measures have been included to promote ride
sharing programs such as, but not necessarily
including, publishing ride sharing information
for all of the tenants, designating a certain
percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing
vehicles, designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting areas for
ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website
or message board for coordinating rides.
2-14 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Documentation of compliance with this
measure shall be provided to the City Building
Official for review and approval. Installation of
the identified design features or equipment
will be confirmed by the City Building Official
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
MM4.2-34 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
measures have been included to provide
adequate bicycle parking near building
entrances to promote cyclist safety, security,
and convenience. Documentation of
compliance with this measure shall be
provided to the City Building Official for review
and approval. Installation of the identified
design features or equipment will be
confirmed by the City Building Official prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy.
MM4.2-35 Prior to issuance of any certificate
of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate
that all interior building lighting supports the
use of compact fluorescent light bulbs or
equivalently efficient lighting to the
satisfaction of the City Building Official.
MM4.2-36 Tenants shall be responsible to
ensure that preferential parking spaces are
allocated to ultra-low emission vehicles and
alternative fueled vehicles to encourage the
use of alternative fuels and ultra-low emission
vehicles.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-15
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Impact 4.2-7 Construction The City believes that both construction MM4.2-2 through MM4.2-39 would also Finding 1 Significant and
apply to this impact. unavoidable
and operation of the and operation of the proposed project
The City finds that changes or alterations have
proposed project would result would result in a cumulatively
been required in, or incorporated into, the
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
project which would avoid or substantially
considerable net increase of pollutants for which the proposed project
lessen the significant environmental effect as
criteria pollutants for which region is in nonattainment under an
identified in the final EIR.
the proposed project region is applicable federal or state ambient air
Finding 3
quality standard.
in nonattainment under an
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
applicable federal or state
The City further believes that the
other considerations make infeasible additional
ambient air quality standard.
implementation of MM4.2-2 through
mitigation. Specifically, no additional feasible
MM4.2-39 will reduce the emissions of
mitigation measures exist that would avoid or
these pollutants but not a less than
substantially reduce this impact. Since the
significant level.
region is in non-attainment for CO, NO, PM,
X10
and PM and the project exceeds SCAQMD
2.5
Discussion is provided on pages 4.2-37 daily thresholds for VOC, NO, CO, and PM
X10
and 38 of the FEIR (Volume I). In addition, for construction and operation, it will make a
cumulatively considerable impact.
Appendices B and G provide further
evidence supporting this impact and its
associated findings.
BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Impact 4.3-1 Long-term The City believes that compliance with MM4.3-1 To ensure that avian species of Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development MM4.3-1, which requires that avian concern, protected migratory species (e.g.,
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the species of concern, protected migratory MBTA), or raptors species are not injured or
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code would species (e.g., MBTA), or raptors species disturbed by construction in the vicinity of
project which would avoid or substantially
not result in a potential are not injured or disturbed by nesting habitat, the project applicant shall
lessen the significant environmental effect as
implement the following measures:
reduction in nesting construction in the vicinity of nesting
identified in the final EIR.
opportunities for resident and habitat, will reduce potential impacts to
1. Tree removal shall be restricted to the
nesting, migratory, or protected birds.
migratory avian species of
period between August 30 and
special concern.
February 15, to the extent feasible, to
avoid the breeding season of any
Discussion is provided on pages 4.3-16
migratory species that could be using the
and 17. 4.4-40 of the FEIR (Volume I). In
area, and to discourage nesting in the
addition, Appendix C provides further
vicinity of an upcoming construction area.
evidence supporting this impact and its
2-16 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
associated findings. If it is not feasible to remove trees outside
this window then, prior to the beginning of
mass grading, including grading for major
infrastructure improvements, during the
period between February 15 and
August 30, all trees within 250 feet of any
grading or earthmoving activity shall be
surveyed for active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than 30 days prior to
disturbance. If active nests are found, and
the site is within 250 feet of potential
construction activity, a temporary fence
shall be erected, where appropriate,
around the tree(s) at a distance of up to
250 feet, depending on the species, from
the edge of the canopy to prevent
construction disturbance and intrusions
on the nest area. The appropriate buffer
shall be determined in consultation with
the City of Santa Ana Park Naturalist or a
designee.
2. No construction vehicles shall be
permitted within restricted areas (i.e.,
protection zones), unless directly related
to the management or protection of the
legally protected species.
3. If a legally protected species nest is
located in a tree designated for removal,
the removal shall be deferred until after
August 30, or until the adults and young
of the year are no longer dependent on
the nest site as determined by a qualified
biologist.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-17
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
CR
ULTURAL ESOURCES
Impact 4.4-1 Long-term Implementation of MM4.4-1(a) and MM4.4-1(a) Prior to any earth-disturbing Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development MM4.4-1(b) will ensure that adverse activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading)
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the impacts will not occur to archaeological that could encounter undisturbed soils, the
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code could resources and/or human remains since it project applicant shall retain an archaeologist
project which would avoid or substantially
cause a substantial adverse involves pre-grading study as well who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
lessen the significant environmental effect as
change in the significance of provisions for handling remains or artifacts Professional Qualifications Standards for
identified in the final EIR.
that are encountered unexpectedly.
an archaeological resource or Archaeology to determine if the project could
disturb human remains.
result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
Discussion is provided on pages 4.4-19
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
and 20 of the FEIR (Volume I). In addition,
Guidelines or disturb human remains. The
Appendix D provides further evidence
investigation shall include, as determined
supporting this impact and its associated
appropriate by the archaeologist and the City
findings.
of Santa Ana, an updated records search of
the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS),
updated Native American consultation, and a
pedestrian survey of the area proposed for
development. The results of the investigation
shall be documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies and evaluates
any archaeological resources within the
development area and includes
recommendations and methods for
eliminating or avoiding impacts on
archaeological resources or human remains.
The measures shall include, as appropriate,
subsurface testing of archaeological
resources and/or construction monitoring by a
qualified professional and, if necessary,
appropriate Native American monitors
identified by the applicable tribe (e.g., the
Gabrieliño Tongva Nation) and/or the Native
2-18 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
American Heritage Commission. The
methods shall also include procedures for the
unanticipated discovery of human remains,
which shall be in accordance with
Section 5097.98 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of
California’s Health and Safety Code. The
technical report or memorandum shall be
submitted to the City of Santa Ana for
approval. As determined necessary by the
City, environmental documentation (e.g.,
CEQA documentation) prepared for future
development within the project site shall
reference or incorporate the findings and
recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be
responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or avoiding impacts on
archaeological resources identified in the
technical report or memorandum. Projects
that would not encounter undisturbed soils
and would therefore not be required to retain
an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-
disturbance to the City through the
appropriate construction plans or
geotechnical studies prior to any earth-
disturbing activities. Projects that would
include any earth disturbance (disturbed or
undisturbed soils) shall comply with
MM4.4-2(b).
MM4.4-1(b) If evidence of an archaeological
site or other suspected historical resource as
defined by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, including darkened soil
representing past human activity (“midden”),
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-19
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
that could conceal material remains (e.g.,
worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone,
hearths, storage pits, or burials) are
discovered during any project-related earth-
disturbing activities (including projects that
would not encounter undisturbed soils), all
earth-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the
find shall be halted and the City of Santa Ana
shall be notified. The project applicant shall
retain an archaeologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to
assess the significance of the find. Impacts to
any significant resources shall be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level through data
recovery or other methods determined
adequate by the archaeologist and that are
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Archaeological Documentation.
Any identified cultural resources shall be
recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L)
form and filed with the SCCIC.
Impact 4.4-2 Long-term The City believes that through the MM4.4-2(a) Prior to any earth-disturbing Finding 1 Less than
Significant
cumulative development potential grading for future project activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading)
The City finds that changes or alterations have
occurring pursuant to the construction impacts would potentially that could encounter undisturbed soils, the
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code has the occur to paleontological resources. project applicant shall retain a professional
project which would avoid or substantially
potential to directly or However, implementation of MM4.2-2(a) paleontologist to determine if the project could
lessen the significant environmental effect as
indirectly destroy a unique and MM4.2-2(b) would reduce the impact directly or indirectly destroy a unique
identified in the final EIR.
paleontological resource or to less than significant through pre-paleontological resource or site or unique
unique geologic feature.
grading study as well as by providing geologic feature. The investigation shall
provisions to preserve resources that are include, as determined appropriate by the
encountered unexpectedly.
paleontologist and the City of Santa Ana, a
paleontology records check and a pedestrian
survey of the area proposed for development.
Discussion is provided on pages 4.4-20
The results of the investigation shall be
2-20 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
and 21 of the FEIR (Volume I). documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies the
paleontological sensitivity of the development
area and includes recommendations and
methods for eliminating or avoiding impacts
on paleontological resources or unique
geologic features. The technical report or
memorandum shall be submitted to the City
for approval. As determined necessary by the
City, environmental documentation (e.g.,
CEQA documentation) prepared for future
development within the project site shall
reference or incorporate the findings and
recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be
responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or avoiding impacts on
paleontological resources or unique geologic
features identified in the technical report or
memorandum. Projects that would not
encounter undisturbed soils and would
therefore not be required to retain a
paleontologist shall demonstrate non-
disturbance to the City through the
appropriate construction plans or
geotechnical studies prior to any earth-
disturbing activities. Projects that would
include any earth disturbance (disturbed or
undisturbed soils) shall comply with
MM4.4-3(b).
MM4.4-2(b) Should paleontological resources
(i.e., fossil remains) be identified at a
particular site during project construction, the
construction foreman shall cease construction
within 100 feet of the find until a qualified
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-21
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
professional can provide an evaluation.
Mitigation of resource impacts shall be
implemented and funded by the project
applicant and shall be conducted as follows:
1. Identify and evaluate paleontological
resources by intense field survey where
impacts are considered high
2. Assess effects on identified sites
3. Consult with the institutional/academic
paleontologists conducting research
investigations within the geological
formations that are slated to be impacted
4. Obtain comments from the researchers
5. Comply with researchers’
recommendations to address any
significant adverse effects where
determined by the City to be feasible
In considering any suggested mitigation
proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the
City of Santa Ana staff shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible
in light of factors such as the nature of the
find, project design, costs, applicable policies
and land use assumptions, and other
considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary
or infeasible, other appropriate measures
(e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work
may proceed on other parts of the project site
while mitigation for paleontological resources
is carried out.
Impact 4.4-3 The adoption of Summary: CEQA Guidelines Section MM4.4-3 Prior to development activities that Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
the Transit Zoning Code 15064.5(b) states that “a project with an would demolish or otherwise physically affect
The City finds that changes or alterations have
(SD 84A and SD 84B) would effect that may cause a substantial buildings or structures 50 years old or older or
been required in, or incorporated into, the
2-22 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
result in substantial adverse adverse change in the significance of an affect their historic setting, the project project which would avoid or substantially
change in the significance of historical resource is a project that may applicant shall retain a cultural resource lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
a historical resource as have a significant effect on the professional who meets the Secretary of the
defined in Section 15064.5 of environment.” Adoption of the Transit Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Finding 3
the CEQA Guidelines.
Zoning Code would enable new Standards for Architectural History to
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
development that would result in determine if the project would cause a
other considerations make infeasible additional
demolition, relocation, or alteration of substantial adverse change in the significance
mitigation. Specifically, there is no additional
historical resources, including resources of a historical resource as defined in Section
mitigation available to reduce this impact to
listed on the SARHP and within the Santa 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The
below the level of significance.
Ana Downtown Historic District. This investigation shall include, as determined
impact is considered significant.
appropriate by the cultural resource
professional and the City of Santa Ana, the
Implementation of MM4.4-3 would require
appropriate archival research, including, if
that if future development activities would
necessary, an updated records search of the
require the potential demolition of a
South Central Coastal Information Center
structure 50 years old or greater, the
(SCCIC) of the California Historical
applicant will retain a professional
Resources Information System (CHRIS) and
architectural historian to document the
a pedestrian survey of the proposed
structure and prepare a memorandum for
development area to determine if any
submittal to the City, determining if the
significant historic-period resources would be
structure is considered historical per
adversely affected by the proposed
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
development. The results of the investigation
However, because neither existing City
shall be documented in a technical report or
policies nor the proposed Transit Zoning
memorandum that identifies and evaluates
Code require identification of potentially
any historical resources within the
significant historical resources within
development area and includes
areas proposed for development, and do
recommendations and methods for
not explicitly prohibit demolition of
eliminating or reducing impacts on historical
significant historical resources, it is
resources. The technical report or
possible that development activities
memorandum shall be submitted to the City
resulting from implementation of the
Santa Ana for approval. As determined
proposed Transit Zoning Code would
necessary by the City, environmental
cause a substantial adverse change in the
documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation)
significance of a known or previously
prepared for future development within the
undocumented historical resource.
project site shall reference or incorporate the
Despite existing City policies and the
findings and recommendations of the
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-23
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
provisions within the Transit Zoning Code technical report or memorandum. The project
design and development standards applicant shall be responsible for
requiring architectural compatibility, implementing methods for eliminating or
significant historical resources would be reducing impacts on historical resources
adversely impacted by future development identified in the technical report or
plans that would require demolition of memorandum. Such methods could include,
historic-age buildings and structures. but not be limited to, written and photographic
Therefore, impacts are considered recordation of the resource in accordance
significant and unavoidable.
with the level of Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) documentation that is
Discussion is provided on pages 4.4-22
appropriate to the significance (local, state,
through 26 of the FEIR (Volume I). In
national) of the resource.
addition, Appendix D provides further
evidence supporting this impact and its
associated findings.
Cumulative Paleontological Summary: Because all cultural resources Refer to MM4.4-1(a), MM4.4-1(b), and Finding 1 Significant and
Impacts MM4.4-3, above. unavoidable
are unique and non-renewable members
The City finds that changes or alterations have
of finite classes, all adverse effects or
been required in, or incorporated into, the
negative impacts erode a dwindling
project which would avoid or substantially
resource base.
lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Discussion is provided on page 4.4-27 of Specifically, MM4.4-1(a), MM4.4-1(b), and
the FEIR (Volume I).
MM4.4-3, which would require the Project
Applicant to cease construction and consult
with a qualified professional in the event a
fossil or other cultural resource is found during
construction would reduce adverse impacts.
However, the loss of any one paleontological
site affects all others in a region because these
resources are best understood in the context of
the entirety of the ancient ecologic system of
which they formed a part. The boundaries of
paleontologically important sites are not limited
by property boundaries. In addition, since
historic features in their context are finite
2-24 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
resources, the loss of one structure diminishes
resources from the given context.
Finding 3
Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project
despite mitigation, along with other projects in
the area could inadvertently impact previously
unknown or undiscovered cultural resources.
Therefore, this cumulative impact would remain
significant and unavoidable. The City finds that
specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible additional
mitigation.
HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Impact 4.5-2 Construction Future development under the project MM4.5-1 When sites that are listed in the Finding 1 Less than
significant
activities associated with would involve the transportation, use, EDR Report initiate project development, the
The City finds that changes or alterations have
implementation of the storage, and/or disposal of hazardous project applicant shall prepare a Phase I ESA
been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed Transit Zoning materials, such as diesel exhaust. for the proposed site. The Phase I ESA shall
project which would avoid or substantially
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Construction activities on existing sites be prepared in accordance with ASTM E-
lessen the significant environmental effect as
would result in the release of documented as hazardous materials sites 1527-05 “Standard Practice for Environmental
identified in the final EIR.
hazardous materials to the or requiring demolition of structures built Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
environment through prior to 1980 which may contain asbestos, Site Assessment Process” (November 1,
reasonably foreseeable upset lead or PCBs, would expose construction 2006). The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to
and accident conditions.
workers and the public to hazardous identify environmental conditions at a
materials. However, Federal, state, and proposed project site that may suggest
local regulations govern the disposal of environmental contamination. The Phase I
wastes identified as hazardous, which ESA report shall be prepared by a CA EPA
would be produced at future development Registered Environmental Assessor or
sites. Asbestos, lead, or other hazardous similarly qualified individual prior to initiating
any construction activities at the site.
material encountered during demolition or
construction activities would be disposed
If recommended in the Phase I ESA, the
of in compliance with all applicable
project sponsor shall undertake (or require
regulations for the handling of such waste.
the responsible party to undertake) a Phase II
In addition, implementation of MM4.5-1
ESA soil sampling plan; or if any
through MM4.5-3 would reduce these
environmental contamination is identified by
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-25
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
impacts. the Phase I ESA, the project sponsor shall
implement (or require the responsible party to
Discussion is provided on pages 4.5-15 to
implement) the recommendations of the
17 of the DEIR (Volume I).
report to further investigate and to remove
any soil contamination.
MM4.5-2 In the event that previously
unknown or unidentified soil and/or
groundwater contamination that could present
a threat to human health or the environment
is encountered during construction in the
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
area, construction activities in the immediate
vicinity of the contamination shall cease
immediately. If contamination is encountered,
a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared
and implemented that (1) identifies the
contaminants of concern and the potential risk
each contaminant would pose to human
health and the environment during
construction and post-development and
(2) describes measures to be taken to protect
workers, and the public from exposure to
potential site hazards. Such measures could
include a range of options, including, but not
limited to, physical site controls during
construction, remediation, long-term
monitoring, post-development maintenance or
access limitations, or some combination
thereof. Depending on the nature of
contamination, if any, appropriate agencies
shall be notified (e.g., Santa Ana Fire
Department). If needed, a Site Health and
Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety
and Health Administration requirements shall
be prepared and in place prior to
2-26 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
commencement of work in any contaminated
area.
MM4.5-3 Prior to the demolition of structures
that were constructed before 1980, a
thorough investigation shall be completed to
determine if asbestos, lead, or PCBs exist on
the site. All demolition that could result in the
release of lead and/or asbestos must be
conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards.
Impact 4.5-3 Construction Two school facilities are located within the MM4.5-1 and MM4.5-2 above, would apply to Finding 1 Less than
this impact. significant
activities associated with the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A
The City finds that changes or alterations have
implementation of the Transit and SD 84B) area. Construction activities
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Zoning Code would result in would result in diesel emissions
project which would avoid or substantially
the handling of hazardous associated with diesel-powered trucks and
lessen the significant environmental effect as
materials, substances, or equipment and the potential for site
identified in the final EIR.
waste within one-quarter mile contamination. However, compliance with
of an existing school.
all applicable State, and federal laws and
regulations, regulate, control, or respond
to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or
clean-up in order to ensure that hazardous
materials do not pose a significant risk to
nearby receptors. If ground contamination
is found within close proximity to a school
site before or during construction, further
implementation of mitigation measures
MM4.5-1 and MM4.5-2 would ensure the
health and safety of all students.
Discussion is provided on pages 4.5-17 of
the DEIR.
Impact 4.5-4 The Transit Implementation of the proposed project MM4.5-2 and MM4.5-3 listed above, would Finding 1 Less than
also apply to this impact. significant
Zoning Code (SD 84A and would lead to development of sites
The City finds that changes or alterations have
SD 84B) includes sites which identified on various regulatory databases
been required in, or incorporated into, the
are included on a list of as being contaminated from release of
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-27
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
hazardous materials sites hazardous substances in the soil, project which would avoid or substantially
and as a result, would create including underground storage tanks, and lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
a significant hazard to the small-quantity generators of hazardous
public or environment.
waste. However, implementation of
mitigation measures MM4.5-1 and
MM4.5-2 would ensure that contaminated
sites undergo remediation activities prior
to development activities, thus reducing
the impacts below a level of significance.
Discussion is provided on page 4.5-18 of
the DEIR.
For each of the parcels that are a
proposed as part of the Developer Project,
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
(ESAs) were conducted by Converse
Consultants in April 2010 in accordance
with ASTM Practice E1527-05 standards.
The proposed project area was assessed
by block; thirteen separate ESAs were
prepared. The ESAs were prepared using
and extensive record search as well as
field reconnaissance surveys. The results
of these ESA are summarized in the
Chapter 2 of the Final EIR (Changes to
the Draft EIR). The ESAs concluded that
no further investigation was needed, with
the exception of soil vapor surveys on
Blocks 1 and 6. In accordance with
mitigation measure MM4.5-1, the project
Applicant would be required to undertake
a Phase II ESA soil sampling plan to
ensure that potential impacts remain less
than significant.
Impact 4.5-5 Construction The Transit Zoning Code area is located MM4.5-4 For development of structures that Finding 1 Less than
activities associated with the in the John Wayne Airport (SNA) Planning exceed 200 feet in height above ground level
2-28 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
implementation of the Transit Area and is subject to building height at a development site, applicants shall file a The City finds that changes or alterations have significant
Zoning Code could result in a restrictions. Proposed structures could Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration been required in, or incorporated into, the
safety hazard for people exceed the 200 foot height restriction, with the FAA (FAA Form 7460-1). Following project which would avoid or substantially
residing or working in the potentially resulting in a safety hazard to the FAA’s aeronautical evaluation of the lessen the significant environmental effect as
project area. identified in the final EIR.
people residing or working in the project project, projects must comply with conditions
area. However, implementation of MM4.5-of approval imposed or recommended by the
4 will require projects that exceed 200 feet FAA. Subsequent to the FAA findings, the
to comply with Federal Aviation project shall be reviewed by the ALUC for
consistency analysis.
Administration (FAA) and Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) regulations.
Impact 4.5-6 The Transit Roadway improvements and the potential MM4.5-5 Prior to initiation of construction Finding 1 Less than
significant
Zoning Code could impair the extension of construction activities into the activities, any development within the Transit
The City finds that changes or alterations have
implementation of, or right-of-way during construction of future Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Area
been required in, or incorporated into, the
physically interfere with, an development could result in a reduction in shall have a completed traffic control plan,
project which would avoid or substantially
adopted emergency the number of lanes or temporary closures prepared by the project proponent that will be
lessen the significant environmental effect as
response plan or emergency of certain streets. Additionally, during the implemented during construction activities.
identified in the final EIR.
evacuation plan resulting in a operation of future development, an This may include, but is not limited to, the
significant impact.
increase in traffic on roads or the maintenance of at least one unobstructed
modification of existing transportation lane in both directions on surrounding
routes could occur. These changes could roadways. At any time if only a single lane is
interfere with the response times of available, the developer shall provide a
emergency vehicles. However, during temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e.,
future construction activities, mitigation flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic
measures MM4.5-5 and MM4.5-6 would controls to allow travel in both directions. If
require that temporary street closures construction activities require the complete
would not affect emergency access in the closure of a roadway segment, the developer
vicinity of future developments through the shall provide appropriate signage indicating
alternative routes.
preparation of a traffic plan and
consultation with the Police Department.
MM4.5-6 The City Public Works Department
To reduce impacts during operation of the
shall consult with the Santa Ana Police
project, mitigation measures MM4.5-7 and
Department and the Santa Ana Fire
MM4.5-8 would require the City to update
Department to disclose temporary closures
their Emergency Preparedness Plan and
and alternative travel routes in order to
require future projects to submit
ensure adequate access for emergency
evacuation plans to be revised by City
vehicles when construction of future projects
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-29
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Police and Fire Departments. would result in temporary land or roadway
closures.
MM4.5-7 The Santa Ana Fire Department, in
consultation with other applicable City
Departments (e.g., Police), shall update their
Emergency Preparedness Plan prior to
occupancy of the first project developed
under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and
SD 84B), to address the potential for the
accidental release of hazardous materials that
may be used, stored, and/or transported in
association with operation of project
implementation.
MM4.5-8 Project applicants shall submit
evacuation plans on a project by project basis
that shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Police and Fire Departments.
HAWQ
YDROLOGY ND ATER UALITY
Impact 4.6-1 Implementation Construction activities occurring in the MM4.6-1 In order to comply with the current Finding 1 Less than
significant
of the Transit Zoning Code Transit Zoning Code area would result in version of the DAMP, future development
The City finds that changes or alterations have
would not violate water stormwater contamination and impact projects in the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A
been required in, or incorporated into, the
quality standards, waste water quality. Runoff from construction and SD 84B) area shall prepare Storm Drain
project which would avoid or substantially
discharge, or otherwise sites which may include sediments, Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans
lessen the significant environmental effect as
substantially degrade water contaminates and other pollutants would (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management
identified in the final EIR.
quality.
result in stormwater contamination and Plans (WQMP) conforming to the current
degrade water quality.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by
The operation of future developments in
a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental
the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and
Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public
SD 84B) area would result in the addition
Works Agency for review and approval.
of contaminants into the stormwater runoff
entering the City’s drainage system, a. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated
further degrading water quality. However, as needed during the course of
compliance with federal, state, and local construction to satisfy the requirements of
regulations as well as the implementation each phase of the development. The plan
2-30 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
of MM4.6-1, which requires the use of shall incorporate all necessary Best
BMPs through the preparation of required Management Practices (BMPs) and other
water quality-related documents (SWPPP City requirements to eliminate polluted
and WQMP), would reduce this impact to runoff until all construction work for the
below the level of significance.
project is completed. The SWPPP shall
include treatment and disposal of all
dewatering operation flows, and for
nuisance flows during construction. The
SWPPP may include, but would not
necessarily be limited to, the following
applicable measures:
Minimum required pavement widths
¦
for residential streets needed to
comply with all zoning and applicable
ordinances
Use permeable materials for private
¦
sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, or
interior roadway surfaces
Reduce the overall imperviousness
¦
associated with parking lots by using
pervious materials in spillover parking
areas
Direct rooftop runoff to pervious
¦
areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff
to the roadway or the stormwater
conveyance system
Biofilters including vegetated swales
¦
and strips
Extended/dry detention basins
¦
Infiltration basin
¦
Infiltration trenches or vaults
¦
Catch basin inserts
¦
Continuous flow deflection/separation
¦
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-31
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
systems
Storm drain inserts
¦
Media filtration
¦
Foundation planting
¦
Catch basin screens
¦
Normal flow storage/separation
¦
systems
Clarifiers
¦
Filtration systems
¦
Primary waste water treatment
¦
systems
Dry Wells
¦
Cistern
¦
b. A WQMP shall be prepared, maintained,
and updated as needed to satisfy the
requirements of the adopted NPDES
program. The plan shall incorporate water
quality measures for all improved phases
of the project.
Impact 4.6-3 Development Future development in the Transit Zoning MM4.6-1 would also apply to this impact. Finding 1 Less than
significant
under the Transit Zoning Code area would result in minor
The City finds that changes or alterations have
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) alterations to drainage, such as changes
been required in, or incorporated into, the
could alter the existing in ground surface permeability via paving,
project which would avoid or substantially
drainage pattern of the area or changes in topography via grading and
lessen the significant environmental effect as
and potentially result in excavation. However, adherence to
identified in the final EIR.
erosion and siltation.
existing regulations and implementation of
MM4.6-1 which requires future
development to prepare a storm drain plan
and WQMP would reduce the volume of
sediment-laden runoff discharge from the
sites within the project area. As such,
because future projects would projects are
2-32 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
not anticipated to substantially alter the
drainage patter and future development
would adhere to existing requirements
which would reduce erosion and siltation
during operation, the impact would be
reduced to below the level of significance.
Impact 4.6-4 Future Future development would consist MM4.6-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits Finding 1 Less than
significant
development in the Transit primarily of infill and redevelopment which for future development projects in the Transit
The City finds that changes or alterations have
Zoning Code (SD 84A and would not substantially alter drainage Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area,
been required in, or incorporated into, the
SD 84B) could alter the patterns because these areas are already applicants shall submit site-specific Hydrology
project which would avoid or substantially
existing drainage pattern and developed with existing uses and and Hydraulic Studies to the Public Works
lessen the significant environmental effect as
potentially result in increased impervious surfaces. However, Department for review and approval. If
identified in the final EIR.
downstream flooding through development of land that is currently existing facilities are not adequate to handle
the addition of impervious vacant and covered with permeable runoff that may be generated by the proposed
surfaces, or exceeding the surfaces, would increase impervious development, then the applicant shall propose
capacity of existing or surfaces and could in turn increase feasible remedies to assure that adequate
planned stormwater drainage stormwater runoff in the project area. This drainage facilities will be available prior to
systems.
increase in runoff could exceed capacity issuance of occupancy permits. The applicant
of existing and planned infrastructure and may propose storm drain improvements to be
cause downstream flooding impacts.
constructed in order to meet project needs. If
necessary storm drain upgrades cannot be
However, implementation of MM4.6-1
implemented prior to issuance of occupancy
would reduce the volume of runoff
permits, on site detention facilities or other
generated and potential for flooding
methods acceptable to the City shall be
through incorporation of stormwater
included with new development projects to
detention facilities. Mitigation measures
ensure that post-construction runoff does not
MM4.6-2 through MM4.6-4 would address
exceed pre-development quantities.
issues relating to existing storm drain
system capacity through project design MM4.6-3 During the design of individual
features, and by providing for project projects, applicants shall minimize impervious
specific requirements.
area by incorporating landscaped areas over
substantial portions of a proposed project
area. Furthermore, impervious areas shall be
directly connected to landscaped areas or
bioretention facilities to promote filtration and
infiltration of stormwater.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-33
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
MM4.6-4 During the design of individual
projects, applicants shall control structural
source through storm drain stenciling and
signage, coverage of trash area to minimize
direct precipitation, efficient irrigation to
minimize runoff into stormwater conveyance
system, slope and channel protection to
decrease potentials for erosions of slopes,
and use of deep-rooted, drought tolerant plant
species for erosion control.
N
OISE
Impact 4.8-1 Construction Construction activities associated with the MM4.8-1 All construction activity within the Finding 1 Less than
significant
activities associated with the proposed project may exceed permitted City shall be conducted in accordance with
The City finds that changes or alterations have
proposed project would noise levels. However, adherence to the Section 18-314(e) of the City of Santa Ana
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Municipal Code.
generate noise levels that City’s Noise Ordinance which restricts
project which would avoid or substantially
exceed the noise standards construction activities during certain hours
MM4.8-2 Each project applicant shall require lessen the significant environmental effect as
established by the City of and prohibits construction from occurring
identified in the final EIR.
by contract specifications that the following
Santa Ana Municipal Code.
on Sunday, and implementation of
construction best management practices
mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through
(BMPs) be implemented by contractors to
MM4.8-4 would ensure that impacts
reduce construction noise levels:
associated with construction-related noise
Two weeks prior to the commencement of
would be minimized. Said mitigation
construction, notification must be provided to
measures would set forth BMPs that can
property owners within 300 feet of a project
help substantially reduce construction
site disclosing the construction schedule,
noise, in addition to the routing of trucks
including the various types of activities that
and grading equipment (to the extent
would be occurring throughout the duration of
feasible) away from sensitive receptors.
the construction period
These measures would require that the
Ensure that construction equipment is
construction contractor for the Developer
properly muffled according to industry
Project implement measures to reduce
standards and be in good working condition
potential impacts related to construction
Place noise-generating construction
noise. Mitigation Measure MM4.8-1 would
equipment and locate construction staging
require that all construction activity be
areas away from sensitive uses, where
conducted in accordance with Section 18-
2-34 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
314(e) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal feasible
Code. Mitigation Measure MM4.8-2 would
Schedule high noise-producing activities
require that the construction contractor
between the hours of 8:00 .. and 5:00 ..
AMPM
incorporate Best Management Practices
to minimize disruption on sensitive uses
(BMPs) that would reduce noise levels at
Implement noise attenuation measures, which
sensitive receptor sites, including Garfield
may include, but are not limited to, temporary
School during construction activities
noise barriers or noise blankets around
associated with the Developer Project.
stationary construction noise sources
MM4.8-2 would require the use of noise
Use electric air compressors and similar
attenuation measures, including the
power tools rather than diesel equipment,
erection of temporary sound barriers, the
where feasible
use of electric generators and
compressors and the staging of
Construction-related equipment, including
construction equipment away from
heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and
sensitive uses. The use of temporary
portable equipment, shall be turned off when
sound barriers would reduce construction
not in use for more than 30 minutes
related noise by approximately 10 dBA.
Construction hours, allowable workdays, and
The use of such sound barriers as well as
the phone number of the job superintendent
the distance of the classrooms from the
shall be clearly posted at all construction
proposed Developer Project
entrances to allow for surrounding owners
(approximately 200 feet) would result
and residents to contact the job
construction related noise levels at
superintendent. If the City or the job
Garfield School of approximately 62 dBA
superintendent receives a complaint, the
L(construction noise dissipates by 6
eq
superintendent shall investigate, take
dBA per doubling of distance).Noise
appropriate corrective action, and report the
levels would be further reduced inside the
action taken to the reporting party.
classrooms due to the attenuation
Contract specifications shall be included in
provided by the classrooms (typically 10-
the proposed project construction documents,
15 dBA reduction), Therefore, with the
which shall be reviewed by the City prior to
implementation of the identified mitigation
issuance of a grading permit.
measures, construction related noise
MM4.8-3 Each project applicant shall require
levels would be reduced to below 55 dBA
by contract specifications that construction
for the interior of classrooms, and impacts
staging areas along with the operation of
to students would be less than significant.
earthmoving equipment within the project
area would be located as far away from
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-35
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
vibration and noise sensitive sites as
possible. Contract specifications shall be
included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the
City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
MM4.8-4 Each project applicant shall require
by contract specifications that heavily loaded
trucks used during construction would be
routed away from residential streets. Contract
specifications shall be included in the
proposed project construction documents,
which shall be reviewed by the City prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
Impact 4.8-2 Operation of Implementation of the proposed project MM4.8-5 When residential uses would be Finding 1 Less than
significant
the proposed project could would lead to the development of high-located in areas with noise levels in excess of
The City finds that changes or alterations have
expose noise-sensitive land density residential uses in areas that 60 dBA CNEL (either through conversion of
been required in, or incorporated into, the
uses to noise levels that currently exceed the 65 dBA CNEL use/structure or new construction), the project
project which would avoid or substantially
exceed the standards “Desirable Maximum,” exposing noise-applicant shall provide noise barriers around
lessen the significant environmental effect as
established by the City of sensitive land uses to noise levels that private open space areas, including patios
identified in the final EIR.
Santa Ana General Plan.
exceed the standards established by the and balconies, as necessary. The height and
City of Santa Ana General Plan. However, density of the barriers shall be sufficient to
implementation of mitigation measure reduce the exterior noise levels within private
MM4.8-5 would ensure that exterior living open space areas to a CNEL of 65 dBA or
less.
spaces, such as porches and patios, are
constructed in a manner that noise levels
MM4.8-6 Prior to issuance of building
do not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL. Further
permits, building plans shall specify the STC
implementation of mitigation measure
rating of windows and doors for all residential
MM4.8-6 would ensure that interior living
land uses. Window and door ratings shall be
spaces of the residential units do not
sufficient to reduce the interior noise level to a
exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Mitigation measure
CNEL of 45 dBA or less, and shall be
MM4.8-7 would require shielding of new
determined by a qualified acoustical
HVAC system to achieve suitable noise
consultant as part of the final engineering
levels.
design of the project.
MM4.8-7 Each project applicant shall provide
2-36 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
proper shielding for all new HVAC systems
used by the proposed residential and mixed
use buildings to achieve an attenuation of
15 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment.
Impact 4.8-8 Operation of Under the Transit zoning Code, sensitive MM4.8-8 The City shall provide a written Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
the Southern California uses, primarily residential structures would statement to each applicant for projects
The City finds that changes or alterations have
Regional Rail Authority’s be located in close proximity to the located within 400 feet of the SCRRA tracks
been required in, or incorporated into, the
(SCRRA) rail line would SCRRA rail line. Operation of the SCRRA that shall be provided for each residential unit
project which would avoid or substantially
potentially expose noise-rail line would expose noise-sensitive land and resident, notifying them of potential noise
lessen the significant environmental effect as
sensitive land uses located uses located within the project area to and vibration issues associated with the
identified in the final EIR.
railroad tracks, including the following:
within the Transit Zoning noise levels that exceed the standards
Finding 3
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) established by the City of Santa Ana
Notice of Disclosure
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
General Plan.
area to noise levels that
Each owner’s [or renter’s] interest is subject
other considerations make infeasible additional
exceed the standards
Implementation of mitigation measures
to the fact that trains operate at different times
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
established by the City of
MM4.8-5 and MM4.8-6 would reduce
of the day and night on the railway tracks
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
Santa Ana General Plan.
noise levels at sensitive receptors
immediately adjacent to a project site; and
that would avoid or substantially reduce this
associated with interior and exterior
that by accepting the conveyance of an
impact. Proximity to the SCRRA rail line will
communal and private spaces.
interest [or lease agreement] in that project,
have noise impacts. One of the main benefits
Additionally, MM4.8-8 would also reduce
owner [or renter] accepts all impacts
of living in transit-oriented developments is the
noise impacts by disclosing to future
generated by the trains.
proximity to transit, in this case heavy rail. The
residents the types and level of noise that
Posting of Notice of Disclosure in each lifestyle choice associated with living in a
can be expected.
residential unit
transit oriented area means accepting higher
However, these measures would not
than normal, intermittent noise levels.
Prior to offering the first residential unit for
reduce impacts below the levels
purchase, lease, or rent, the property owner
established in the City’s Municipal Code.
or developer shall post a copy of the Notice of
The City is currently pursuing the
Disclosure in every unit in a conspicuous
establishment of Quiet Zone within the
location. Also, a copy of the Notice of
City which would further reduce this
Disclosure shall be included in all materials
impact, by preventing trains from using
distributed for the Project, including but not
their horns at at-grade crossings, however
limited to: the prospectus, informational
this has not yet occurred.
literature, and residential lease and rental
agreements.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-37
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Impact 4.8-9 Construction Temporary construction-related vibration MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 listed above, Finding 1 Significant and
would also apply to this impact. unavoidable
activities associated with the associated with future development would
The City finds that changes or alterations have
proposed project would potentially result in high levels of vibration
been required in, or incorporated into, the
generate or expose persons resulting in human annoyance and
project which would avoid or substantially
or structures to excessive groundborne vibration associated with
lessen the significant environmental effect as
groundborne vibration.
construction equipment would potentially
identified in the final EIR.
damage historic structures. This would
Finding 3
expose sensitive receptors in the project
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
area to vibration impacts above the
other considerations make infeasible additional
applicable threshold. Implementation of
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
MM4.8-4 would help to reduce this impact
that would avoid or substantially reduce this
through the use of BMPs, but not to a
impact. The weight of construction equipment
less-than-significant level.
as well the specific work performed thereby
cause temporary, unwanted vibration.
Cumulative Noise Impact Vibration from future development would MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 listed above, Finding 1 Significant and
would also apply to this impact. unavoidable
potentially combine with construction
The City finds that changes or alterations have
vibration of other projects to result in a
been required in, or incorporated into, the
potentially significant cumulative impact.
project which would avoid or substantially
Residential development associated with lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
the proposed project and two related
projects, located within close proximity to
Finding 3
the SCCRA would expose residents to
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
noise levels exceeding the “Desirable
other considerations make infeasible additional
Maximum” standard. This is considered
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
cumulatively considerable.
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
that would avoid or substantially reduce this
impact. The noise from heavy rail, vehicular
traffic, construction equipment would be
cumulatively significant.
2-38 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
PS
UBLIC ERVICES
Impact 4.10-1 Construction Construction of new projects pursuant to MM4.10-1 Prior to an issuance of a building Finding 1 Less than
significant
of new projects pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code would increase permit, individual projects in the Transit
The City finds that changes or alterations have
the Transit Zoning Code the demand for fire protection services, Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area shall
been required in, or incorporated into, the
(SD 84A and SD 84B) would but it would not require the construction of perform a water supply, fire flow test and fire
project which would avoid or substantially
increase the demand for fire new or physically altered facilities to protection system design analysis to ensure
lessen the significant environmental effect as
protection services, but it accommodate the increased demand or that proposed projects are in accordance to
identified in the final EIR.
would not require the maintain acceptable response times. meet standard fire protection design
requirements.
construction of new or However, implementation of the MM4.10-1
physically altered facilities to would ensure that appropriate steps are
accommodate the increased taken during project design such that all
demand or maintain necessary fire safety features would be in
acceptable response times.
place and available to the SAFD during a
call for service. Additionally, individual
projects would be required to pay Fire
Facility Fee per the City’s Municipal Code.
Impact 4.10-2 Operation of The direct population increase associated MM4.10-2 Any development that would Finding 1 Less than
significant
the proposed project would with build out of the proposed project exceed two stories in height shall submit site-
The City finds that changes or alterations have
increase the demand for would increase the demand for police specific security plans to the SAPD for review
been required in, or incorporated into, the
prior to issuance of a building permit.
police services, thereby services, reducing the existing officer-to-
project which would avoid or substantially
requiring additional staffing, citizen ratio and potentially resulting in the
MM4.10-3 No developer within the Transit lessen the significant environmental effect as
although it would not require need for additional personnel and possibly
identified in the final EIR.
Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
the construction of new or equipment. Compliance with applicable
boundaries shall utilize a frequency of 800
physically altered facilities or regulations and guidelines and
MHz, which is reserved for emergency
personnel to accommodate implementation of MM4.10-2 and MM4.10-
services.
the increased demand.
3 would substantially reduce this impact to
less than significant levels by requiring
safety plan preparation and reserving
emergency services frequency.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-39
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Impact 4.10-3 Construction The addition of new students to SAUSD MM4.10-4 Individual project developers shall Finding 1 Less than
significant
of new residential units within schools as a result of population growth pay school impact fees prior to the issuance
The City finds that changes or alterations have
of occupancy permits.
the project area would generated by new development would
been required in, or incorporated into, the
generate new students that further contribute to the existing
project which would avoid or substantially
could require the addition of overcrowded conditions. However,
lessen the significant environmental effect as
new classroom facilities, payment of school impacts fees by
identified in the final EIR.
thereby requiring new or individual project developers as required
physically altered facilities to by MM4.10-4 would ensure that impacts
accommodate additional are reduced to less than significant by
students in Santa Ana Unified allowing the school district to expand its
resources as necessary.
School District (SAUSD)
schools.
Impact 4.10-5 All properties Population growth associated with full MM4.10-5 Prior to issuance of a building Finding 1 Less than
significant
identified as having new build out of the project would create permit for a residential development project,
The City finds that changes or alterations have
development potential to be additional demand on the existing or change of use from non-residential to
been required in, or incorporated into, the
built out pursuant to the parklands inventory. However, mitigation residential within the Transit Zoning Code
project which would avoid or substantially
provisions of the Transit measure MM4.10-5 would require all (SD 84A and SD 84B) area, project applicants
lessen the significant environmental effect as
Zoning Code (SD 84A and future residential development projects to shall pay to the City of Santa Ana the Park
identified in the final EIR.
Acquisition and Development Fee.
SD 84B) these new projects pay Park Acquisition and Development
would generate a need for Fee which would ensure that demand on
new or physically altered park parklands is not exacerbated by providing
facilities in order to maintain funding for new park acquisition and
acceptable service ratios. construction based on future needs.
T/T
RANSPORTATIONRAFFIC
Impact. 4.11-1 Operation of Operation of the proposed project would MM4.11-1 The City of Santa Ana shall, during Finding 1 Less than
significant
the proposed project would result in impacts related to neighborhood any roadway improvement within the Transit
The City finds that changes or alterations have
result in impacts related to traffic in the adjacent residential areas of Zoning Code boundaries, evaluate, consider,
been required in, or incorporated into, the
neighborhood traffic in the the project area. However, Mitigation and implement as appropriate the traffic
project which would avoid or substantially
adjacent residential areas to measure MM4.11-1 would ensure that calming measure(s), including but not limited
lessen the significant environmental effect as
to the following:
the Transit Zoning Code traffic calming measures are implemented
identified in the final EIR.
(SD 84A and SD 84B) area.
during any roadway improvements that
Curb extensions at local intersections
¦
would occur in the project area, thus
Short medians at entries to wide streets
¦
deterring cut-through traffic onto local
2-40 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
residential streets. ¦ Traffic circles at oversized intersections
Speed humps
¦
Turn restrictions
¦
Impact 4.11-8 Long-term Under a full build-out scenario of the MM4.11-3 The City of Santa Ana Public Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development proposed project, the project would Works Agency shall monitor the traffic signals
The City finds that changes or alterations have
under implementation of the contribute to unacceptable levels of within the Transit Zoning Code study area
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code would service at a number of intersections during once every five years to ensure that traffic
project which would avoid or substantially
signal timing is optimized.
cause an increase in traffic AM and PM peak hours in both 2030 and
lessen the significant environmental effect as
which is substantial in 2035. Intersection improvements
identified in the final EIR.
MM4.11-4 The City of Santa Ana shall
relation to the existing traffic incorporated into the project as MM4.11-3
institute a program for systematic mitigation of
load and capacity of the through MM4.11-15 which were
impacts as development proceeds within the
street system.
developed and modeled by professional
Transit Zoning Code to ensure mitigation of
traffic engineers would ensure that all
the individual improvements. The program
study area intersection would operate at
shall prescribe the method of participation in
acceptable levels under the 2030 and
the mitigation program by individual projects
2035 AM and PM peak hours
and guide the timely implementation of the
mitigation measures. The program shall
include the following elements:
A funding and improvement program should
be established to identify financial resources
adequate to construct all identified mitigation
measures in a timely basis.
All properties that redevelop within the Transit
Zoning Code should participate in the
program on a fair share per new development
trip basis. The fair share should be based
upon the total cost of all identified mitigation
measures, divided by the peak hour trip
generation increase forecast. This rate per
peak hour trip should be imposed upon the
incremental traffic growth for any new
development within the Transit Zoning Code.
The program should raise funds from full
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-41
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
development of the Transit Zoning Code to
fund all identified mitigation measures.
The program should monitor phasing
development of the Transit Zoning Code and
defer or eliminate improvements if the
densities permitted in the Transit Zoning
Code are not occurring.
Program phasing should be monitored
through preparation of specific project traffic
impact studies for any project that is expected
to include more than 100 dwelling units or
100,000 sf of non-residential development.
Traffic impact studies should use traffic
generation rates that are deemed to be most
appropriate for the actual development
proposed.
Properties within Santa Ana and within one-
half mile of the Transit Zoning Code that
redevelop to result in higher traffic generation
should also participate in the program to
insure equity.
The City may elect to implement appropriate
mitigation measures as a condition of
approval of the proposed developments,
where appropriate. All or part of the costs of
these improvements may be considered to be
a negotiated credit toward the program,
however the program must be administered in
a manner that assures that it can fund
necessary improvements to maintain
adequate level of service at all intersections
within this study. If funding of priority
improvements cannot be assured, credit for
construction of lower priority improvements
may not be assured or may be postponed
2-42 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
until more program funds are available.
MM4.11-5 Main Street at First Street—Install
a second northbound and southbound left-
turn lanes and a dedicated northbound right-
turn lane for 2030 and 2035 conditions.
MM4.11-6 Lacy Street at Santa Ana
Boulevard—Install a traffic signal and provide
exclusive left-turn lane for both northbound
and southbound directions for both 2030 and
2035 conditions.
MM4.11-7 Lacy Street at First Street—Install a
traffic signal for both 2030 and 2035
conditions, a traffic signal, and provide
exclusive left-turn lane for both northbound
and southbound directions for both 2030 and
2035 conditions.
MM4.11-8 Santiago Street at Washington
Avenue—Install a traffic signal and provide
one exclusive left-turn lane for both
eastbound and westbound traffic for 2035
conditions only.
MM4.11-9 Santiago Street at Civic Center
Drive—Install a traffic signal and provide: one
exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through and right-turn lane on
northbound and southbound approaches; and
one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared
through and right lane on eastbound and
westbound approaches. The improvement is
only needed for 2035 conditions.
MM4.11-10 Santiago Street at Santa Ana
Drive—Construct a second southbound left-
turn lane for 2035 conditions. The
improvement is only needed for 2035
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-43
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
conditions.
MM4.11-11 Santiago Street a Fourth Street—
Install a traffic signal. The lane configuration
for the signal is recommended as 1 Left, 1
Through, 1 Through+ Right for all
approaches.
MM4.11-12 Standard Street at First Street—
Construct third eastbound and westbound
shared through-right lanes for 2035
conditions. The improvement is only needed
for 2035 conditions.
MM4.11-13 Grand Avenue at Santa Ana
Boulevard—Construct a third southbound
through lane and eastbound right-turn overlap
signal phasing.
MM4.11-14 Grand Avenue at First Street—
Construct a third eastbound shared
through/right-turn lane, a third westbound
shared through/right-turn lane, and a third
northbound through lane with dedicated
northbound right-turn lane for 2035
conditions. The improvement is only needed
for 2035 conditions.
MM4.11-15 Grand Avenue at I-5 Northbound
Ramps—Construct a second westbound
right-turn lane and for the I-5 northbound off
ramp under both 2030 and 2035 conditions.
2-44 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
Impact 4.11-9 Long-term Under the full build-out scenario of the MM4.11-16 I-5 at Santa Ana Blvd.—Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
cumulative development proposed project the northbound off-ramp Northbound Off-Ramp—The City of Santa
The City finds that changes or alterations have
under implementation of the at the I-5 Santa Ana Boulevard Ana Department of Public Works shall
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Transit Zoning Code would interchange would operate at an coordinate with Caltrans for the installation of
project which would avoid or substantially
result in impacts related to unacceptable level of service during 2035 a second ramp lane for the I-5 northbound off
lessen the significant environmental effect as
freeway ramps in the vicinity PM peak hour. With implementation of ramp. The improvement shall be implemented
identified in the final EIR.
to mitigate 2035 conditions.
of the Transit Zoning Code mitigation measure MM4.11-16, the
Finding 2
area.
presence of two ramp lanes would
The City finds that such changes or alterations
improve the level of service of the
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
northbound off-ramp to LOS C or better
another public agency (Caltrans District 12)
and result in a less than significant impact.
and not the agency making the finding. Such
However, the City, as the lead agency for
changes have been adopted by such other
this project, has no control over major
agency or can and should be adopted by such
freeway improvements. As such, unless
other agency.
permission is given from Caltrans, this
traffic impact would remain unmitigated.
Cumulative Traffic Impact The traffic analysis for the Proposed Refer to MM4.11-1 through MM4.11-16. Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
Project used a cumulative analysis to look
The City finds that changes or alterations have
at 2030 and 2035 traffic levels. The
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Proposed Project identified specific
project which would avoid or substantially
intersections that would require traffic
lessen the significant environmental effect as
improvements in order to reduce
identified in the final EIR.
cumulative traffic impacts. All impacts
Finding 2
would be reduced to a less than significant
The City finds that such changes or alterations
with implementation of mitigation measure
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
proposed as part of the project, with the
another public agency (Caltrans District 12)
exception of the northbound off-ramp at
and not the agency making the finding. Such
the I-5 Santa Ana Boulevard interchange.
changes have been adopted by such other
As explained above, implementation of
agency or can and should be adopted by such
mitigation measure MM4.11-16, the
other agency.
presence of two ramp lanes would
improve the level of service of the
northbound off-ramp to LOS C or better
and result in a less than significant impact.
However, the City, as the lead agency for
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-45
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
this project, has no control over major
freeway improvements. As such, unless
permission is given from Caltrans, this
traffic impact would remain unmitigated.
USS
TILITIES AND ERVICE YSTEMS
Impact 4.12-4 Long-term New development within the project area MM4.12-1 Individual project applicants shall Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative pursuant to the would result in an incremental increase in prepare site-specific sewer evaluations,
The City finds that changes or alterations have
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A sewer generation, potentially resulting in including flow monitoring and modeling,
been required in, or incorporated into, the
and SD 84B) could require an exceedance of existing sewer during the project design to determine the
project which would avoid or substantially
the construction of new or conveyance capacity. However, adequacy of the existing sewer pipe capacity
lessen the significant environmental effect as
expanded wastewater implementation of mitigation measure in the affected project area lines. The
identified in the final EIR.
conveyance systems, the MM4.12-2 which requires OCSD approval evaluation shall be submitted to the City of
construction of which would prior to the issuance of building permits Santa Ana or OCSD, as appropriate, for
not cause significant and continued water conservation review and approval prior to issuance of
environmental effects.
practices would ensure that impacts the building permits. Any recommendations made
wastewater conveyance system would be in the site-specific sewer evaluations shall be
less than significant.
incorporated into the design of each individual
project.
Impact 4.12-8 Long-term Implementation of future development MM4.12-2 Individual non-residential project Finding 1 Less than
significant
cumulative development under the proposed Transit Zoning Code applicants are encouraged to apply for
The City finds that changes or alterations have
pursuant to the Transit would increase demand on electricity Southern California Edison’s “Savings By
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Zoning Code (SD 84A and supply and delivery constraints, and for Design” program. The program is aimed at
project which would avoid or substantially
SD 84B) would increase the natural gas. However, compliance with generating an overall reduction in energy use
lessen the significant environmental effect as
demand for electricity and energy conservation measured contained through design methods and incentive
identified in the final EIR.
gas, but would not require or in Title 24 and implementation of MM4.12-programs by maintaining a 15% or greater
exceedance of Title 24.
result in the construction of 3 and MM4.12-3 and MM4.12-4 would
new energy production or foster efficient energy use and sure that a
MM4.12-3 Individual development projects
transmission facilities, the less than significant impact remains with
within the boundaries of the Transit Zoning
respect to energy.
construction of which could
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) shall implement
cause a significant
energy conservation measures (such as
environmental impact.
energy-efficient lighting and microprocessor
controlled HVAC equipment) to reduce the
demand for electricity and natural gas as part
2-46 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
of the project design. The energy
conservation measures shall be subject to
modification as new technologies are
developed, or if current technology becomes
obsolete, through replacement and shall be
reviewed by the Planning and Building
Agency prior to issuance of a building permit.
GCC
LOBAL LIMATE HANGE
Impact 4.13-1 Long-term The project will generate emissions from MM4.13-1 All diesel fueled construction Finding 1 Significant and
unavoidable
cumulative development carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous equipment shall be classified EPA Tier II or
The City finds that changes or alterations have
better emission efficiencies.
pursuant to the Transit oxide. Long-term cumulative development,
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Zoning Code at full build-out and attendant construction activity,
MM4.13-2 All construction equipment shall be project which would avoid or substantially
would result in significant pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code at full
shut off when not in use and shall not idle for lessen the significant environmental effect as
localized air quality impacts build-out would generate GHG emissions
identified in the final EIR.
more than five minutes, unless actively
for operational level during the construction period from
engaged in construction activities.
Finding 3
operation of construction equipment.
emissions. As a whole, this
MM4.13-3 Queuing of trucks on- and offsite
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
impact is significant for
Long-term cumulative development
shall be limited to periods when absolutely
other considerations make infeasible additional
operational emissions due to
pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code at full
necessitated by grading or construction
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
the size of the Transit Zoning
build-out would result in significant air
activities.
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
quality impacts for operational level
MM4.13-4 All on-road construction trucks and that would avoid or substantially reduce this
area.
emissions.
other vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds impact. Technology does not yet exist in an
While implementation of mitigation
shall be shut off when not in use and shall not economical fashion that would allow common
measures MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-7
idle for more than 5 minutes.
use of zero emission vehicles or combustible
would reduce construction-related and
fuels that generate substantially fewer carbon
MM4.13-5 To the extent feasible, all diesel-
operational emissions, they may not
atoms or other greenhouse gas-causing
and gasoline-powered construction
reduce these emissions to levels below
substances.
equipment shall be replaced with equivalent
the SCAQMD thresholds as the amount of
electric equipment.
emissions generated for each project
MM4.13-6 Project plans and specifications
would vary. Under these conditions, no
shall include policies and procedures for the
further feasible mitigation measures are
reuse and recycling of construction and
available and this impact would be
demolition waste (including, but not limited to,
considered significant and unavoidable.
soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and
cardboard).
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-47
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
MM4.13-7 Project plans and specifications
shall include education for construction
workers about reducing waste and using
available recycling services.
MM4.13-8 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
the design of the proposed buildings or
structures meets or exceeds the most recent
Title 24 requirements (Title 24, Part 6 of the
California Code of Regulations; Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non
Residential Buildings; Cool Roof Coatings
performance standards), subject to review by
the City Building Official. Documentation of
compliance with this measure shall be
provided to the Planning and Building Agency
and Building Official for review and approval
prior to issuance of the permit. Installation of
the identified design features or equipment
will be confirmed by the City Building Official
prior to certificate of occupancy. The following
design features should be considered by the
applicant as a way to achieve Title 24
compliance in excess of the minimum
requirement:
Increase in insulation such that heat
¦
transfer and thermal bridging is minimized
Limit air leakage through the structure or
¦
within the heating and cooling distribution
system to minimize energy consumption
Incorporate dual-paned or other energy
¦
efficient windows
Incorporate energy efficient space
¦
heating and cooling equipment
2-48 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
¦ Incorporate energy efficient light fixtures
Incorporate energy efficient appliances
¦
Incorporate energy efficient domestic hot
¦
water systems
Incorporate solar panels into the electrical
¦
system
Incorporate cool roofs/light-colored
¦
roofing
Or other measures that will increase the
energy efficiency of building envelope in a
manner that when combined with the other
options listed above exceeds current Title 24
Standards (Title 24, Part 6 of the California
Code of Regulations; Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Non
Residential Buildings, as amended
September 11, 2008; Cool Roof Coatings
performance standards as amended
September 11, 2006) by a minimum of 20
percent
MM4.13-9 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, applicants for individual projects shall
provide a landscape plan that includes shade
trees around main buildings, particularly along
southern elevations where practical, and will
not interfere with loading dock locations or
other operational constraints. Documentation
of compliance with this measure shall be
provided to the Planning and Building Agency
for review and approval.
MM4.13-10 All showerheads, lavatory
faucets, and sink faucets within the residential
units, and where feasible within non-
residential developments, shall comply with
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-49
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
the California Energy Conservation flow rate
standards.
MM4.13-11 Low-flush toilets shall be installed
within all Congregate Care units as specified
in California State Health and Safety Code
Section 17921.3.
MM4.13-12 Project designers should consider
design features to incorporate light-colored
roofing materials that will deflect heat away
from the building and conserve energy.
MM4.13-13 Landscape designers shall
ensure that landscaping of common areas for
Industrial/Commercial projects uses drought-
tolerant and smog-tolerant trees, shrubs, and
groundcover to ensure long-term viability and
conserve water and energy.
MM4.13-14 Landscape designers shall
ensure that the landscape plan for
Industrial/Commercial projects includes
drought resistant trees, shrubs, and
groundcover within the parking lot and
perimeter.
MM4.13-15 Individual project applicants shall
ensure that designs for Industrial/Commercial
projects include all illumination elements to
have controls to allow selective use as an
energy conservation measure.
MM4.13-16 The applicant for
Industrial/Commercial projects should
promote ride sharing programs such as, but
not necessarily including, publishing ride
sharing information for all of the tenants,
designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating
2-50 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
adequate passenger loading and unloading
and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles,
and providing a website or message board for
coordinating rides. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate that measures have been
included to provide adequate bicycle parking
near building entrances to promote cyclist
safety, security, and convenience pursuant to
SAMC Chapter 41 regarding bicycle parking
standards and Chapter 16 of the Santa Ana
Citywide Design Guidelines regarding
Bikeway Support Facilities Guidelines .
Documentation of compliance with this
measure shall be provided to the City Building
Official for review and approval. Installation of
the identified design features or equipment
will be confirmed by the City Building Official
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
MM4.13-17 Prior to issuance of any certificate
of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate
that all Multi-family/Industrial/Commercial
projects’ interior building lighting supports the
use of compact fluorescent light bulbs or
equivalently efficient lighting to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
MM4.13-18 Applicants for Multi-
family/Industrial/Commercial projects shall
consider providing preferential parking spaces
for ultra-low emission vehicles and alternative
fueled vehicles to encourage the use of
alternative fuels and ultra-low emission
vehicles.
MM4.13-19 Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-51
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
the proposed Multi-family/
Industrial/Commercial uses building or
structure designs incorporate exterior storage
areas for recyclables and green waste and
adequate recycling containers located in
public/common areas pursuant to the adopted
standards. Documentation of compliance with
this measure shall be provided to the
Planning and Building Agency for review and
approval. Installation of the identified design
features or equipment will be confirmed by
the City Building Official prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
MM4.13-20 All common area irrigation areas
for Multi-family/Industrial/Commercial projects
shall consider systems that are capable of
being operated by a computerized irrigation
system which includes an onsite weather
station/ET gage capable of reading current
weather data and making automatic
adjustments to independent run times for
each irrigation valve based on changes in
temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity,
rain, and wind. In addition, the computerized
irrigation system shall also consider the ability
to be equipped with flow-sensing capabilities,
thus automatically shutting down the irrigation
system in the event of a mainline break or
broken head. These features will assist in
conserving water, eliminating the potential of
slope failure due to mainline breaks, and
eliminating over-watering and flooding due to
pipe and/or head breaks.
MM4.13-21 Consideration of installation of
solar roofs on homes and businesses to offset
2-52 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
the increasing demand for energy and natural
gas.
MM4.13-22 Project applicants shall, where
feasible, incorporate passive solar design
features into the buildings, which may include
roof overhangs or canopies that block
summer shade, but that allow winter sun,
from penetrating south facing windows.
MM4.13-23 Use Energy Efficient Roofing
Materials. All roofing materials used in
commercial/retail buildings at the Mixed-Use
Retail Development shall be Energy Star®
certified. All roof products shall also be
certified to meet American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) high emissivity
requirements.
MM4.13-24 All commercial/industrial projects
shall, where feasible, include up to 10%
renewable energy sources within the project.
Impact 4.13-2 Long-term Based on a threshold of 30% reduction in MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-24 would also Finding 1 Significant and
apply to this impact. unavoidable
cumulative development greenhouse gas emissions over “business
The City finds that changes or alterations have
pursuant to the Transit as usual,” the Project as a whole had
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Zoning Code at full build-out significant impacts for operational
project which would avoid or substantially
has the potential to conflict emissions due to the size of the Transit
lessen the significant environmental effect as
with AB 32. The Project as a Zoning Code area. While implementation
identified in the final EIR.
whole is significant for of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through
Finding 3
operational emissions due to MM4.13-7 would reduce construction-
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
the size of the Transit Zoning related and operational emissions on a
other considerations make infeasible additional
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) project level basis, in the long-term
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
area.
cumulative basis would exceed
additional feasible mitigation measures exist
thresholds.
that would avoid or substantially reduce this
impact. Technology does not yet exist in an
economical fashion that would allow common
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-53
Chapter 2 CEQA Findings
Table 2-1 CEQA Findings
Level of
Significance after
Impact Statement Evidence/Rationale Supporting Findings Mitigation Measures Findings Mitigation
use of zero emission vehicles or combustible
fuels that generate substantially fewer carbon
atoms or other greenhouse gas-causing
substances.
GI
ROWTH NDUCEMENT
In general, a project may The proposed project includes potential No feasible mitigation measures exist that Finding 3
would reduce this impact.
foster spatial, economic, or change to a more mixed-use zoning
The City finds that specific economic, social, or
population growth in a designation. The proposed designations
other considerations make infeasible additional
geographic area if it meets would be generally consistent with the
mitigation. Specifically, the City finds that no
any one of the criteria nature of on-site and surrounding
feasible mitigation measures exist that would
identified below:
development. Implementation of the
avoid or substantially reduce the growth-
amendments would allow for continued
inducing effect of the project.
The project removes an
¦
use of industrial development, while also
impediment to growth
permitting mixed-use development to
(e.g., the establishment
promote increased land use compatibility
of an essential public
with surrounding uses and a more transit-
service, or the provision
supportive environment. However, due to
of new access to an
the lack of an existing mixed-use land use
area)
and/or zoning designation within the City,
The project results in the
¦
the project would be considered growth
urbanization of land in a
inducing as a result of removing an
remote location (leapfrog
impediment to growth or establishing a
development)
precedent-setting action.
The project establishes a
¦
precedent-setting action
(e.g., a change in zoning
or general plan
amendment approval)
Economic expansion or
¦
growth occurs in an area
in response to the project
(e.g., changes in revenue
base, employment
expansion, etc.)
2-54 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
CHAPTER 3Findings Regarding Project
Alternatives
3.1INTRODUCTION
The EIR prepared for Transit Zoning Code considered six (6) alternatives to the Proposed Project.
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation
is to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project
alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the Proposed
Project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives are presented
below.
3.2PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives of the Transit Zoning Code are to:
¦
Provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods
¦
Provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing
¦
Allow for the reuse of existing structures
¦
Allow the development of the Agency properties
¦
Provide a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition
of new transit infrastructure
¦
Preserve and reinforce the existing character and pedestrian nature of the City by strengthening
urban form through improved development and design standards
¦
Encourage alternative modes of transportation, including the rail system that connects San Diego
to Los Angeles
The project objectives of the Developer Project for the Agency-owned properties are to:
¦
Redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties
¦
Provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals
established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged
Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan
¦
Enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with
the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code
and that support future transit planning
¦
Eliminate blight
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-1
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
¦
Provide additional public open space and facilitate joint use arrangement with SAUSD for a new
community center
¦
Provide an economically viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties
3.3SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR evaluated six (6) alternatives, including the No Project/No
Development alternative, in Chapter 5.0. This evaluation compared the environmental advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative to the Proposed Project. Alternative 1, 2, and 3 are primarily designed
to address alternatives to the Transit Zoning Code as a whole. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 present
alternatives to the proposed Developer Project, and under each of these Alternatives, the proposed
Transit Zoning Code would remain the unchanged.
The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when
considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were
environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably
identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic
project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide
meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project.
It should be noted that the Alternatives section of the DEIR was re-circulated due to the addition of
three new alternatives (Alternatives 4, 5 and 6) which would lessen the impacts related to historic
structures located within the proposed Developer Project area. The re-circulation of the Alternatives
section concurrently extended the public comment period on the DEIR.
3.4PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS
3.4.1Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code
Analyzed in the Draft EIR
Alternative 1, 2, and 3 are primarily designed to address alternatives to the Transit Zoning Code as a
whole. The Lead Agency’s findings on each alternative and the rationale behind each finding are set forth
below.
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative
?
This alternative assumes a continuation of the City’s existing General Plan and zoning designations to
guide future growth and development within the Transit Zoning Code project area. The impacts of this
alternative were analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the Transit Zoning Code area with
the current allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and
zoning designations. In addition, this alternative assumes that the proposed Developer Project would not
go forward on the Agency-owned properties. Maintaining the existing General Plan and zoning
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-2
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
designations throughout the Transit Zoning Code area would result in impacts that are similar, for the
most part, to those of the proposed Transit Zoning Code, although many of the significant impacts
associated with aesthetics, air quality, climate change, and noise/vibration would be reduced as compared
to the Proposed Project. A number of impacts would be greater under the No Project/No Development
Alternative than under the proposed project due to the absence of mitigation measures that would be
adopted as part of the proposed project, e.g., impacts from increased light and glare. Additionally,
because the City’s existing General Plan and zoning designations do not emphasize alternative modes of
transportation and do not contain the development framework necessary to support the transit-oriented
development, impacts to traffic/transportation would be greater under the No Project/No Development
Alternative than under the proposed Transit Zoning Code.
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of the No Project/No Development Alternative infeasible.
Although Alternative 1 would moderately reduce some of the proposed project’s significant impacts, it
would not achieve most of the basic project objectives. Specifically, Alternative 1 would not provide
zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods. It would not provide
for a range of housing options, including affordable housing. It would not provide for the reuse of
existing structures, allow the development of the Agency-owned properties, or strengthening urban form
through improved development and design standards. Moreover, unlike the proposed project, it would
not provide a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support transit-oriented
development, or encourage alternative modes of transportation.
As a result of its inability to meet the basic project objectives, the No Project/No Development
Alternative would eliminate the opportunity to provide the numerous benefits of the proposed project,
as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, including land use development that provides
a better market for public transit, consistent with the goals of SB 375, California’s Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act; providing strategic areas for infill, pedestrian friendly
environments, and focusing housing and employment growth in transit-accessible locations through
transit-oriented developments, consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the Connections (RTP), and SCAG’s 2008 Regional
Comprehensive Plan: Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future (RCP) land use goals; and providing
opportunities to meet the City of Santa Ana’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
for 2006-2014.
Additionally, Alternative 1 would not further the established Goals and Policies of the City’s General
Plan to the same extent as the proposed Transit Zoning Code. In particular, it would not further
Housing Element Policies HE-2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, which support the goal of providing a diversity of quality
housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and
workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community to the
same extent as the proposed Transit Zoning Code. Nor would it further Land Use Element policies LE-
1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9, which promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs,
LE-2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10, which promote land uses which enhance the City’s economic and fiscal
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-3
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
viability, LE-4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, which support the goal of protecting and enhancing developments sites
and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life, or LE-5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.7,
5.9, 5.10, and 5.11, which ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated to the same extent as the
proposed Transit Zoning Code. (See Land Use Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Similarly, it would not
further the goals of the Urban Design Element (Goals 1-7) to the same extent as the proposed Transit
Zoning Code. (See Urban Design Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Moreover, the integrated and
cohesive development standards that are proposed for the Transit Zoning Code area would not be
implemented.
Lastly, Alternative 1 would increase impacts on transportation as a result of lack of emphasis on
alternative modes of transportation in the current General Plan and zoning designations and the lack of a
development framework to support transit-oriented development. For these reasons, the City rejects
Alternative 1 as infeasible.
Alternative 2: Overall Reduced Density
?
The Overall Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the intensity of all anticipated land uses within
the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area by 25 percent. In general, this alternative would
reduce the number of residences, including affordable housing, and reduce employment opportunities as
a result of less commercial uses in the area. Specifically, this alternative would result in approximately
1,019 fewer residential units, and 96,750 fewer square feet of retail within the Transit Zoning Code
(SD 84A and SD 84B) area. Specific development characteristics that would be allowed under this
alternative relative to the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) are specified in Table 3-1
(Alternative 2 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code [SD 84A and SD 84B] Characteristics).
Table 3-1 Alternative 2 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
Characteristics
Land Use Type Alternative 2 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Difference
Residential (units) 3,0564,075 (1,019)
Retail (sf) 290,250387,000(96,750)
Industrial (sf) (990,000)(990,000)0
Commercial (sf) (124,000) (124,000)0
Civic (sf) (21,000)(21,000)0
Green (sf) 680,000680,000 0
Parking (1,772,000) (1,772,000)0
SOURCE: PBS&J 2010
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of this alternative infeasible.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-4
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Although Alternative 2 would somewhat reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Transit Zoning
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) on aesthetics, climate change, and transportation, it would not reduce any of
those impacts to below the level of significance. In addition, Alternative 2 would not meet the housing
and transit objectives of the Project to the same extent as the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would reduce housing by 25 percent, from 4,075 to 3,056 residential units. The potential
number of affordable housing units would also be reduced by 25 percent. Providing 3,056 new units
would not meet Santa Ana’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment for 2006-2014, which calls for 3,393
total units, 1,248 of which must be affordable for low, very low, and extremely low income households.
The City of Santa Ana has a great need for affordable housing; sixty percent of the households in Santa
Ana have low, very low, and extremely low income. (City of Santa Ana General Plan Draft Housing
Element 2006-2014, Appendix A, p. A-10.) Goal 2 of the Housing Element is to “provide a diversity of
quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and
workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community.”
Alternative 2 would not meet this goal, or the following Housing Element policies, to the same extent as
the proposed project:
HE-2.3 Rental Housing. Encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s
residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate
income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers.
HE-2.4 Diversity of Housing Types. Facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types,
prices, and sizes of housing, including single family homes, apartments, town
homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work
housing.
Alternative 2 would not meet the project’s transit oriented objectives to the same extent as the proposed
project. Reducing the amount of housing and retail space would result in a failure to fully emphasize the
use of the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) for City residents. A mixed-use urban
and transit-oriented neighborhood requires a critical mass and balance between residential and non-
residential uses in order to succeed. (Draft EIR, Section 5.5.) Alternative 2 would not provide that critical
mass and balance.
In addition, it would not implement established SCAG RTP or RCP policies, or General Plan Land Use
Element policies 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10,
and 5.11, or Urban Land Use Element Goals 1 through 7 to the same extent as the proposed project.
(See Land Use Element; Urban Design Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Specifically, the Alternative 2
would not meet the following SCAG RTP Land Use Goals to the same extent as the proposed project:
¦
Create mixed-use districts or “complete communities” in strategic growth areas through a
concentration of activities with housing, employment, and a mix of retail and services, located in
close proximity to each other. Focusing a mix of land uses in strategic growth areas creates
complete communities wherein most daily needs can be met within a short distance of home,
providing residents with the opportunity to patronize their local area and run daily errands by
walking or cycling rather traveling by automobile.
¦
Intensify nodes along corridors with people-scaled, mixed-use developments. Many existing
corridors lack the residential and commercial concentration to adequately support non-auto transit
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-5
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
uses, without which the existing transit system cannot fully realize its potential for accommodating
additional trips and relieving the transportation system. These nodes along the corridor also create
vibrant, walkable communities with localized access to amenities, further reducing reliance on the
automobile for a variety of trips.
¦
Pedestrian-friendly environments and more compact development patterns in close proximity to
transit serve to support and improve transit use and ridership. Focusing housing and employment
growth in transit-accessible locations through this transit-oriented development approach will
serve to reduce auto use and support more multimodal travel behavior.
Further, the large reduction in retail space would significantly reduce potential new employment
opportunities and the economic benefits that accompany such opportunities, as compared to the
proposed Transit Zoning Code. It would also reduce the amount of potential tax revenue that the City
could use to reinvest and stimulate economic development.
On balance, reducing the development intensity by 25 percent under Alternative 2 would not provide any
significant environmental benefits that outweigh the extent to which it would inhibit the City’s ability to
meet regional housing needs and its goal of establishing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented
development framework to support the new transit-infrastructure.
For these reasons, the City rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible.
Alternative 3: Low-Rise Project
?
This alternative is a low- to mid-rise version of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B), which
would limit building heights in the Downtown and Transit Village Districts to four stories. Under
Alternative 3, the Downtown and Transit Village Districts would be redeveloped according to the
standards of the First Street Corridor District. The remaining districts of the Transit Zoning Code
(SD 84A and SD 84B) area would be developed consistent with the proposed project. This would result
in 2,049 fewer residential units and 36,000 fewer sf of retail uses. Because this alternative would allow
building heights that are similar to existing buildings in the area, the alternative would ensure future
development would have less shade/shadow impacts, as well as generate fewer automobile trips.
The anticipated mix of land uses would therefore be different than the proposed project, and a less
residential based area would result. Specific development characteristics that would be allowed under this
alternative relative to the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) are specified in Table 3-2
(Alternative 3 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code [SD 84A and SD 84B] Characteristics).
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-6
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Table 3-2 Alternative 3 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
Characteristics
Land Use Type Alternative 3 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Difference
Residential (units) 2,0264,075 (2,049)
Retail (sf) 351,000387,000(36,000)
Industrial (sf) (990,000)(990,000)0
Commercial (sf) (124,000) (124,000)0
Civic (sf) (21,000)(21,000)0
Green (sf) 680,000680,000 0
Parking (1,534,000) (1,772,000)(238,000)
SOURCE: PBS&J 2010
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of Alternative 3 infeasible.
Although Alternative 3 would reduce a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project to
aesthetics (shading and shadows) to a less than significant level, it would restrict development within the
City to low- to mid-rise development, which would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the
proposed project.
Specifically, this restriction would require a reduction in housing (including affordable housing) from
4,075 units to 2,026 units, which would not meet Santa Ana’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment for
2006-2014, which call for 3,393 units, 1,248 of which must be affordable for low, very low, and extremely
low income households. The City of Santa Ana has a great need for affordable housing – sixty percent of
the households in Santa Ana have low, very low, and extremely low incomes. (City of Santa Ana General
Plan Draft Housing Element, Appendix A, p. A-10.) Goal 2 of the Housing Element is to “provide a
diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s
residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive
community.” Alternative 3 would not meet this goal to the same extent as the proposed project.
Similarly, it would not meet Housing Element policy 2.2, set forth below, to the same extent as the
proposed project:
HE-2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and 24-hour
pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid-to high-rise office centers,
commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers.
Alternative 3 would also fail to implement the following Housing Element policies to the same extent as
the proposed project:
HE-2.1 Downtown. Strengthen Santa Ana’s core as a vibrant mixed-use and mixed-income
environment by capitalizing on the government center, arts district, and historic
downtown and facilitating transit-oriented development and diverse
neighborhoods.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-7
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
HE-2.3 Rental Housing. Encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s
residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate
income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers.
HE-2.4 Diversity of Housing Types. Facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types,
prices, and sizes of housing, including single family homes, apartments, town
homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work
housing.
Alternative 3 would not meet the project’s transit oriented objectives to the same extent as the proposed
project. Reducing the amount of housing and retail space would result in a failure to fully emphasize the
use of the SARTC for City residents. A mixed-use urban and transit-oriented neighborhood requires a
critical mass and balance between residential and non-residential uses. (Draft EIR, Section 5.5.)
Alternative 3 would not provide that critical mass and balance.
Reducing housing and retail opportunities would result in a failure to fully benefit from the investment in
the expansion of the transit system and would not adequately target growth in housing, employment, and
commercial development within walking distance of the existing and planned transit stations. In addition,
Alternative 3 would not implement SCAG RTP and RCP policies or established General Plan Land Use
Element policies 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10,
and 5.11, or Urban Land Use Element Goals 1 through 7 to the extent that the proposed project would.
(See Land Use Element; Urban Design Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Specifically, Alternative 3
would not meet the following SCAG RTP Land Use Goals to the same extent as the proposed project:
¦
Create mixed-use districts or “complete communities” in strategic growth areas through a
concentration of activities with housing, employment, and a mix of retail and services, located in
close proximity to each other. Focusing a mix of land uses in strategic growth areas creates
complete communities wherein most daily needs can be met within a short distance of home,
providing residents with the opportunity to patronize their local area and run daily errands by
walking or cycling rather traveling by automobile.
¦
Intensify nodes along corridors with people-scaled, mixed-use developments. Many existing
corridors lack the residential and commercial concentration to adequately support non-auto transit
uses, without which the existing transit system cannot fully realize its potential for accommodating
additional trips and relieving the transportation system. These nodes along the corridor also create
vibrant, walkable communities with localized access to amenities, further reducing reliance on the
automobile for a variety of trips.
¦
Pedestrian-friendly environments and more compact development patterns in close proximity to
transit serve to support and improve transit use and ridership. Focusing housing and employment
growth in transit-accessible locations through this transit-oriented development approach will
serve to reduce auto use and support more multimodal travel behavior.
Additionally, the reduction in retail space under Alternative 3 would reduce potential new employment
opportunities, and the economic benefits that accompany such opportunities, as compared to the
proposed project. It would also reduce the amount of potential tax revenue that the City could use to
reinvest and stimulate economic development.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-8
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
On balance, the reduction in impacts to shading and shadows provided by this alternative do not
outweigh the costs associated with the loss of housing and retail opportunities that would also occur
under this alternative.
For these reasons, the City rejects Alternative 3 as infeasible.
3.4.2Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code
Analyzed in the Draft EIR
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, described below, present alternatives to the proposed Developer Project. Under
each of these Alternatives, the proposed Transit Zoning Code would remain the unchanged. The Lead
Agency’s findings on each alternative and the rationale behind each finding are set forth below.
Alternative 4: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Rehabilitate in Place
?
Description
This alternative would eliminate the demolition of structures on the fourteen parcels within the Station
District currently owned by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency that were slated for
demolition under the proposed Developer Project (see Figure 5-1 [Demolitions]) and instead require that
those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations. Additionally, the City/Agency
would not acquire any of the twenty parcels identified in Figure 5-2 [Potential New Santa Ana
Redevelopment Agency Acquisitions]. Upon completion of rehabilitation, the rehabilitated houses would
be offered for-sale as low or moderate income housing. The proposed Transit Zoning Code would
remain the same under this Alternative.
In total, this Alternative would provide approximately 75 rental units and approximately 24 for sale units
within the Station District, for a total of approximately 99 units. Of these, approximately 72 would be
rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households, approximately 19 would be offered for
sale as low income units, and one would be offered for sale to those meeting the Orange County criteria
for Moderate Income. (See EIR Appendix J (Updated) [Alternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], Table 1,
Alternatives Analysis.) By contrast, approximately 124 units would be provided by the proposed
Developer Project, of which 121 would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income
households, and thirty two units would be offered for sale, of which six units would be offered for sale to
those meeting the Orange County criteria for Moderate Income. (Id.)
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of this alternative infeasible.
Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014. The City’s RHNA calls for 3,393 units of new residential
construction, 694 of which are to be affordable to very low income households, 574 of which are to be
affordable to low income households, and 665 to be affordable to moderate income households (EIR,
Section 4.9). Alternative 4 would provide 37 fewer units that would be affordable to very-low, low and
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-9
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
moderate income households than the proposed Developer Project. This reduction in the number of
affordable housing units eliminates an opportunity to provide affordable housing in furtherance of
meeting the City’s RHNA. It also eliminates the opportunity to provide Special Needs housing through
the Mercy House project.
Similarly, Alternative 4 does not to meet the City’s policy of “maximiz[ing] affordable housing on
Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels.” (See
Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Nor does it go far enough to meet the City’s
policy to “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce,
including a commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa
Ana workers” (Policy HE-2.3) or its policy to “facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types,
prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse
housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing” (Policy HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana
Housing Element [2006-2014].)
Further, the City of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to
accommodate families. As stated in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family
housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only 13% of multiple family and single-
family rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families who rent have
five or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units. The Developer
Project contains 78 two-bedroom units (two of which are manager units) and 67 three-bedroom units. In
addition, the Mercy House project would provide one three-bedroom, five-one bedroom and five two-
bedroom units (exclusive of manager’s unit) of special needs housing. These units are appropriately sized
to meet Santa Ana’s identified demographic needs. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not further
the City’s policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for families, nor would it achieve the
project objectives described above.
Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the “Housing
Accountability Act,” which restricts the City’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions, in
certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City may not disapprove a housing development
project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in
Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The City is unable to make any of these findings at
this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible.
Additionally, Alternative 4 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately
reduce construction costs. Therefore, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency would
be less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be approximately $26,000 higher than
the proposed Developer Project. This is attributable to the fact that smaller apartment projects would be
developed under this alternative, which generate a higher per unit financial gap, according to the financial
analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for the City of Santa Ana (as updated on May
22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. This is a significantly less efficient and effective way to
spend the funds available for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer
Project.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-10
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Further, under Alternative 4, the proposed park identified in the Developer Project would no longer be
included as a project component. The park was one element of several in the overall vision for
development of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternative 4 effectively eliminates the
ability to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures
currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that block would remain under Alternative 4,
and the City/Agency under this scenario would be precluded from acquiring any additional properties.
Further, Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the
Agency-owned properties, and, as explained above, it would not meet the objective of providing new
affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City’s affordable housing goals to the same extent as
the proposed project. Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency would be able to attract a quality developer
to undertake a small scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under
Alternative 4. This will seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable
redevelopment.
In light of these considerations, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible.
Alternative 5: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Relocate to Agency-
?
Owned Infill Sites/Rehabilitate in Place
Description
This alternative would eliminate the demolition on the fourteen parcels within the Station District
currently owned by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency that were slated for demolition under
the proposed Developer Project (see Figure 5-1 [Demolitions]). Instead, those properties would be
rehabilitated in place or moved to vacant lots and rehabilitated, with the exception of the property
located at 611 N. Minter Street, which would be demolished. Of the properties identified for demolition
on parcels currently owned by the Agency, and those that may potentially be acquired in the future, only
one is currently listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties—the Whitson-Powelson House
located at 501 E. Fifth Street. The remaining houses have primarily been the subject of “windshield”
surveys to determine their potential eligibility for listing as a historic resource. (See EIR, Section 4.4 and
Appendix D.) Following a comprehensive historic survey of the properties, the City’s Historic Resources
Commission would evaluate all of the structures to determine their eligibility for listing on the City’s
Register of Historical Properties and would make recommendations regarding the selection of houses to
be moved and onto which sites they should be moved. Once moved and/or rehabilitated the houses
would then be offered as for-sale affordable housing. The proposed Transit Zoning Code would remain
the same under this Alternative.
In total, this Alternative would provide approximately 145 units (approximately 124 rental units and
approximately 21 for sale units) on the Agency-owned parcels within the Station District. Of these,
approximately 121 units would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households. (See
EIR Appendix J [Alternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], Table 1, Alternatives Analysis.) This is the
same number of units that would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households in
the proposed Developer Project. (Id.) Alternative 5 would also offer for sale 16 low income units, one
moderate income unit and four market rate units.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-11
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of this alternative infeasible. Specifically, Alternative 5 would reduce the number of
residential units by 11 and would increase costs to the Agency by approximately $6.62 million, according
to the financial analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for the City of Santa Ana (as
updated on May 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. Additionally, this alternative would
cost the Agency approximately $56,800 more per unit than the proposed Developer Project, due
primarily to the substantial rehabilitation and relocation costs that would be involved in this alternative.
(See Appendix J (updated).) This represents a 39% increase in per unit costs. This is a significantly less
efficient and effective way to spend the funds available for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels
than the proposed Developer Project. The significant additional cost to the Agency of this Alternative
renders it economically infeasible.
Additionally, Alternative 5 does not meet the City’s policy of “maximiz[ing] affordable housing on
Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels.”
(Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Nor does it go far enough to meet
the City’s policy to “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and
workforce, including a commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate
income Santa Ana workers” (Policy HE-2.3) or its policy to “facilitate and encourage a diversity and
range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes,
mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing.” (Policy HE-2.4).
(Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].)
Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code Section 65589.5, the “Housing
Accountability Act,” which restricts the City’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions, in
certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City may not disapprove a housing development
project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in
Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The City is unable to make any of these findings at
this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible.
Further, under Alternative 5, the proposed park identified in the Developer Project would no longer be
included as a project component. The park was one element of several in the overall vision for
development of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternative 5 effectively eliminates the
ability to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures
currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that block would remain under Alternative 5.
Finally, Alternative 5 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the
Agency-owned properties. Nor would it meet the objective of providing an economically viable
redevelopment scenario for Agency-owned properties, as explained above or the objective of providing
new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City’s affordable housing goals to the same
extent as the proposed project.
In light of these considerations, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-12
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Alternative 6: Rehabilitate 611 N. Minter Street in Place
?
Description
This alternative would be identical to the proposed Developer Project, with the exception that the
bungalow court located at 611 N. Minter Street would be retained and rehabilitated. Once rehabilitated,
the units at 611 N. Minter Street would be offered for rent to very-low and extremely-low income
households. Alternative 6 would provide 88 rental units, of which 85 would be available to low, very-low
and extremely-low income households, and would provide 32 ownership units, of which six units would
be available for sale to households meeting the Orange County criteria for Moderate Income. In total,
this Alternative would provide approximately 36 fewer low, very-low and extremely-low income units
than the proposed Developer Project. (See EIR Appendix J (updated) [Alternatives Testing: Financial
Analysis], Table 1, Alternatives Analysis.)
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
the adoption of this alternative infeasible.
Specifically, as described above, construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City’s
RHNA for 2006-2014. The location of the 611 N. Minter Street property at the southeast corner of
Minter Street and Santa Ana Boulevard serves as one of the primary foundations of both the
architectural and engineering design of the largest component of the Developer Project. By eliminating
this property from the overall site (identified as Rental Lot 1 on Figure 3-7) it forces a significant
redesign of the multi-family development project proposed for this site and results in a significant
reduction of units, all of which would be deed-restricted for long-term affordability.
Elimination of 36 affordable housing units from the proposed Developer Project inhibits the City’s
ability to meet its housing requirements. It also inhibits the City’s ability to “maximize affordable housing
on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels”
(Policy HE-2.8). (See Santa Ana Housing Element (2006-2014).) This alternative also does not go as far
to “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, including a
commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers”
(Policy HE-2.3) or to “facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing,
including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented
developments, and live/work housing” (Policy HE-2.4). (Id.)
In addition to creating infeasibilities due to the reduction in total affordable housing yield, the proposal
to rehabilitate the existing units contained within the 611 N. Minter Street bungalow court would not be
consistent with the policies contained in the 2006-2014 Housing Element, which identifies the need to
create rental units appropriately sized for large families. The existing bungalows at 611 N. Minter Street
are currently configured as studio units. The sleeping area is comprised of a “Murphy-style” fold-out bed
and the kitchen facilities are minimal. In addition, the property is severely deteriorated. The most likely
rehabilitation scenario, which would require the consolidation of existing units, would result in the
creation of one one-bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. This is a much less desirable unit mix than
that achieved by the Developer Project.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-13
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the “Housing
Accountability Act,” which restricts the City’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions, in
certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City may not disapprove a housing development
project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in
Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The City is unable to make any of these findings at
this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible.
Alternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately reduce
construction costs. Specifically, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency would be
slightly less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be approximately $40,000 higher.
(Appendix J (updated).) This is a significantly less efficient and effective way to spend the funds available
for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project.
Finally, Alternative 6 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the
Agency-owned properties, and it would not meet the objective of providing new affordable housing for
families in furtherance of the City’s affordable housing goals to the same extent as the proposed project.
Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency would be able to attract a quality developer to undertake a small
scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under Alternative 6. This will
seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable redevelopment.
In light of these considerations, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3.4.3Findings on Alternatives that were Considered but Eliminated
from Detailed Analysis in the Draft EIR
In addition to the six alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Lead Agency considered two other
alternatives, both of which it eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIR either because it did not meet
most of the basic project objectives, would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the project as
proposed, and/or is not feasible. These alternatives are discussed below.
Alternative Site
?
This alternative would use an alternative site from that proposed for the Transit Zoning Code and
Developer projects.
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the
adoption of an Alternative Site alternative infeasible. The Transit Zoning Code is designed to guide
development near existing and planned transit and is therefore dependant on the location described for
the proposed project. An alternative site for the Transit Zoning Code project would not locate
development or provide the framework for development near existing or planned transit infrastructure.
Therefore, it would not be able to fulfill the basic project objectives of providing a transit-supportive,
pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure, nor
would it encourage alternative modes of transportation, or increase access to the rail system that
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-14
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
connects San Diego to Los Angeles. Failure to meet these key project objectives renders an alternative
site infeasible.
It would also be infeasible to develop the proposed Developer Project in an alternative location.
Currently the Redevelopment Agency owns a cluster of parcels in the proposed project area and is
considering the acquisition of other properties in the vicinity of these Agency-owned parcels. The
proposed Developer Project is designed and proposed to redevelopment these specific properties. It
would not be practical or feasible to abandon plans for these parcels and begin new future acquisitions
elsewhere, and doing so would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives of the Developer Project.
Specifically, an alternative location would not result in redevelopment of the Agency-owned properties,
would not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard,
with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code
and that support future transit planning, and would not provide an economically viable redevelopment
scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Further, comparable parcels within the entire Transit Zoning
Code are limited by proposed future uses and incompatible existing surrounding uses. Therefore, the
proposed site of the Developer Project is the only feasible location for this redevelopment project.
Rehabilitation of Potential New Acquisitions Alternative
?
In this alternative, the Redevelopment Agency would acquire properties within the Developer Project in
order to complete blocks where the Agency already has an ownership interest, as it would under the
proposed Developer Project. However, instead of demolishing these structures, the Redevelopment
Agency would rehabilitate them in place.
Findings
The City hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the
adoption of this alternative infeasible. This alternative would prevent redevelopment of Agency-owned
properties, a key project objective of the Developer Project. It would also substantially limit the
opportunity to provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable
housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged
Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan. Further it would not enhance
the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the construction
of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future
transit planning. Nor would it secure provision of public open space or facilitation of a joint use
arrangement with SAUSD for a new community center. Finally, it would not provide an economically
viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Additionally, it would result in the
elimination of an opportunity to provide new quality housing. As a result, if demolition of the properties
that may be acquired by the Agency were precluded, the Redevelopment Agency would not pursue their
acquisition, and the benefits of the Developer Project, including the creation of new public open space,
the elimination of blight, and an enhancement of the streetscape, would not be realized.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-15
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
3.4.4Additional Findings
Findings Related to Clarifications and Updates to the Draft EIR
?
Chapter 3 of the Final EIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those
comments. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental
issues as raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines § 15088(b). Additionally, as a result
of refinements to the proposed Developer Project since publication of the Draft EIR, the allocation of
rental of units and for sale units that would be constructed under the proposed Developer Project and
under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 has been slightly modified. The February 23, 2010 financial analysis
prepared by Keyser Marston Associates that was included as Appendix J to the EIR has been updated to
reflect these modifications. The updated financial analysis, dated May 22, 2010, is included as Appendix J
to the Final EIR.
Findings
Responses to comments made on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Final EIR merely clarify and
amplify the analysis presented in the EIR and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guide-
lines §15088.5(b). Similarly, the refined reallocation of rental and for sale residential units that would be
provided by the Developer Project and the updates to the Keyser Marston Associates financial analysis
merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the EIR and do not trigger the need to recirculate per
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b).
Findings on Measures Suggested in Comments on the Draft EIR
?
Several mitigation measures and alternatives were proposed in public comments on the Draft EIR.
Findings for these mitigation measures and alternatives are provided below.
Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Make the Lacy Neighborhood a special district based on its
historical character and proposed a Historic Neighborhood District, Conservation or Preservation
Overlay for the Lacy Neighborhood. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter
from Jeff Dickman (JD), comments JD-24, -27, -35, and -45.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. The Lacy neighborhood has not been designated as historic, and there is no evidence
that the creation of a historic district within the Lacy Neighborhood would reduce the significant
impacts of the proposed project. Further, the creation of a historic district within the City is a
separate process requiring adoption of a local preservation ordinance and cannot be accomplished
through the CEQA process for the proposed project. (See Santa Ana Municipal Code, Part II,
Chapter 30.) Therefore, it is not feasible to adopt and implement this measure as part of the
project.
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Create a “Master Plan for the Preservation of Cultural Resources
in the Transit Zoning Code Area” that identifies properties expected to be impacted by the project,
the type of impact expected, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to and avoid demolition of
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-16
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
historic properties. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman
(JD), comment JD-26.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. Identification of the properties that would be impacted by the project, identification of
the type of impact expected, and identification of mitigation measures to reduce impacts and avoid
demolition of historic properties has already been conducted in the EIR. Specifically, Table 4.4-2
(as modified in Final EIR Chapter 2) lists all properties proposed for demolition under the
proposed Developer Project, and the analysis under Impact 4.4-3 explains that multiple studies
have been completed that address many of the historic-age properties within the project area. In
2006, HRG conducted a reconnaissance-style survey and historic research project in support of the
Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan prepared by Moule & Polyzoides (HRG 2006). This project
aimed to provide recommendations for historic preservation planning on about 400 acres,
including many of the properties found within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B)
project area. Subsequent property-specific studies were conducted by Jones and Stokes (2006 and
2007), which resulted in the full recordation and evaluation of many of the properties within the
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) project area. These evaluations included
determinations of eligibility for the NRHP, CRHR, and the Santa Ana Register of Historic
Properties (SARHP). An additional historic resources memorandum for the record was then
prepared for several properties in Santa Ana by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. This memorandum
provided recommendations about the eligibility of 30 properties for inclusion in the SARHP.
(Refer to DEIR, Appendix D.) Table 4.4-1 lists all properties listed on the SARHP that could be
impacted by the proposed Transit Zoning Code, and Figure 4.4-1 shows all of these properties on
a map of the Transit Zoning Code area and the surrounding areas.
The EIR then identifies Mitigation Measure MM4.4-3 to reduce impacts to historic resources
throughout the Transit Zoning Code Area. This measure would require a qualified professional to
conduct site specific historical resource investigations for future developments within the project
area that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 50 years old or older
or affect their historic setting.
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Preserve historic properties in the Lacy Neighborhood. (See
Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman (JD), comment JD-28.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. There are a very limited number of designated historic resources in the Lacy
Neighborhood (see Draft EIR Figure 4.4-1 [Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties within the
Transit Zoning Code Area]), and the neighborhood itself has not been designated as historic.
Mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce impacts to historic resources throughout the Transit
Zoning Code Area to the extent feasible. Preservation of all historic properties in the Lacy
Neighborhood is not feasible because it may inhibit the City’s ability to meet its affordable housing
goals. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the City has an adopted policy to “maximize
affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to
various income levels.” (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.)
Additionally, preservation of certain properties within the Lacy Neighborhood may inhibit the
City’s ability to “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and
workforce, including a commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-17
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
income Santa Ana workers” (Policy HE-2.3) and to fulfill its policy to “facilitate and encourage a
diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes,
apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work
housing” (Policy HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].)
Further, preservation of all historic properties within the Lacy Neighborhood would be
inconsistent with the objectives of the proposed Developer Project to “redevelop all of the
Agency-owned properties” and “provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the
City's affordable housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for
the Santa Ana Merged Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated
Plan.”
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. In-place rehabilitation, residential and business re-use, and/or
relocation of historic properties to vacant land within the Lacy Neighborhood. (See Final EIR
Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman (JD), comments JD-34, 38.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. Funding for development of the Agency-owned properties within the Lacy
Neighborhood is contingent upon these funds being spent on residential uses. Therefore, use of
these funds for non-residential adaptive re-use is prohibited. Accordingly, commercial re-use of
historic properties on the Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood is legally
infeasible.
Additionally, in-place rehabilitation and/or relocation and rehabilitation of properties proposed for
demolition on Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood are evaluated in Recirculated
Draft EIR (Chapter 5.0). Specifically, Alternative 4 would eliminate the demolition of the
structures currently existing on the Agency-owned properties and/or identified for acquisition, and
would instead require that those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations.
Alternative 5 would reduce the demolition of properties owned by the Redevelopment Agency
and/or identified for acquisition, and would instead require that those properties be rehabilitated,
either in-place or off-site, with the exception of the property at 611 N. Minter Street, which would
be demolished. Alternative 6 would retain and rehabilitate the bungalow court located at 611 N.
Minter Street; however, the remainder of the structures located on the Agency-owned parcels
would be demolished. Please see Chapter 5.0 for additional details about these Alternatives.
¦
Proposed Mitigation. Creation of a community park within the Lacy Neighborhood by taking
the following actions:
?
Close a portion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy. Relocate 3 of the vintage houses on the
south side of Sixth Street to other vacant land on Fifth Street.
?
Build a single row of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. Use the remainder of
the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segment of the park.
?
Acquire 617 E. Sixth for park purposes. Salvage the wood components from this structure before
demolition.
?
Preserve in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street.
(See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman (JD), comment
JD-39.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-18
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Rationale. Closing a portion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy is not feasible because it
would severely limit future transit planning within the City and would be inconsistent with the
Transit Zoning Code objective of “providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented
development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure.” Further, street
closures are, in general, counter to the policies and design standards contained within the proposed
Transit Zoning Code. Maintaining a fine-grained, gridded street network allows for increased
pedestrian and vehicular accessibility which serves to disperse traffic throughout the area. In
addition, maintaining the existing street grid allows for greater opportunities for future
transportation alignments.
Similarly, building a single row of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. and using
the remainder of the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segment of the
suggested park is infeasible because it would be inconsistent with the Developer Project objective
of “enhancing the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard,
with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning
Code and that support future transit planning.”
It would also result in the loss of units that would otherwise be rented to low, very-low and
extremely-low income households. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting
the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the loss of such units
would be inconsistent with the City’s adopted policy to “maximize affordable housing on Agency-
owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels.” (See
Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Additionally, the loss of affordable
housing units would be inconsistent with the City’s policy to “encourage the construction of rental
housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low and
moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers” (Policy HE-2.3) and its
policy to “facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing,
including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented
developments, and live/work housing” (Policy HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-
2014].)
Further, the City of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to
accommodate families. As stated in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family
housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only 13% of multiple family and
single-family rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families who
rent have five or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units.
The Developer Project contains 78 two-bedroom units (two of which are manager units) and 67
three-bedroom units. In addition, the Mercy House project would provide one three-bedroom,
five-one bedroom and five two-bedroom units (exclusive of manager’s unit) of special needs
housing. These units are appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana’s identified demographic needs.
Reducing the number of units that could be provided by the proposed Developer Project would
not further the City’s policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for families
Moreover, under Health and Safety Code section 33334.2, in redevelopment project areas, not less
than 20 percent of the gross tax increment generated from a project must be used by the
redevelopment agency to increase and improve the community’s supply of affordable housing.
Therefore, the use of funds for community serving infrastructure on the Agency-owned properties
must be related and proportional to development of affordable housing. There is no evidence that
funds need to construct the community park suggested by the commenter would be proportional
to the provision of affordable housing. Without such proportionality, it would be legally infeasible
to use the Agency’s set-aside funds to construct the park suggested by the commenter.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-19
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Finally, the EIR analyzed numerous alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce impacts
to historic resources. (See Recirculated EIR Chapter 5.0.) Specifically, Alternative 4 would
eliminate the demolition of existing structures on Agency-owned properties and would eliminate
any of the new potential acquisitions identified in Figure 5-2. Therefore, the suggestion to preserve
in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street is within the range of alternatives already analyzed in Chapter
5.0. In addition, CEQA does not require alternatives to individual project components. The
suggestions provided in the comment are not considerably different from what is already analyzed
in the EIR and would not clearly lessen the significant environmental effects of the project.
Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to
Transportation/Traffic
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Add language to the proposed project zoning code that includes
measures for planned safety near rail crossings and suggested mitigation measures that include
grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail
crossings, and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit access of
trespassers onto the railroad right-of-way. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments),
Letter from California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), comment PUC-2.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. The project would not have any significant impacts on safety at railroad crossings.
Therefore, mitigation measures that would require grade separations on project area roadways to
reduce potential auto/train conflicts are not required. Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) is providing crossing safety enhancements at 10 railroad projects in the City of Santa Ana.
These planned upgrades will include flashing lights, pedestrian signals/gates, quad gates and raised
medians. Implementation of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) project will enhance
safety for motorists and pedestrians. Current technology will also be used to upgrade traffic and
signal controllers with implementation of the proposed project. In addition to these project
components, the Transit Zoning Code will be amended to include policy language in the Street and
Network Concepts section that states: “Any future or planned development adjacent or near the
railroad right-of-way be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. This includes
considering pedestrian circulation/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way.”
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Identify improvements and/or funding mechanisms to mitigate
the project’s traffic impacts. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from City
of Tustin (TUS), comment TUS-5.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. The DEIR identifies mitigation measures needed as a result of expected project-
generated traffic in Section 4.11.3. Specific improvements are identified in mitigation measures
MM4.11-1 through MM4.11-16. Further, mitigation measure MM4.11-4 requires the City of Santa
Ana to “institute a program for systematic mitigation of impacts as development proceeds within
the Transit Zoning Code to ensure mitigation of the individual improvements.” The program is
required to include, among other things, “a funding and improvement program . . . to identify
financial resources adequate to construct all identified mitigation measures in a timely basis.”
(Draft EIR Section 4.11.3, MM4.11-4.) The mitigation measures suggested by the City of Tustin
are already included in the project and will not provide meaningful additional mitigation beyond
the measures that are adopted.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-20
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Public Services
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Require the application of parkland in-lieu fees in conjunction
with development of the project. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from
City of Tustin (TUS), comment TUS-2.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. Development under the Transit Zoning Code project and Developer Project is
required to comply with mitigation measure MM4.10-5, which requires payment into the Park
Acquisition and Development Fund pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV.
Over and above the requirement for new development to pay into the Park Acquisition and
Development Fund, the Redevelopment Agency is pursuing the acquisition and construction of a
range of potential open space amenities within the Transit Zoning Code area, which could include
a public park, new community center and a tot lot. Finally, the standards for private open space
contained within the Transit Zoning Code are designed to ensure that new development provide
open space and outdoor amenities on-site as part of the project design. Consequently, the impact
of the project on park facilities is less than significant and no further mitigation is needed.
Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed in Comments Received Since the Planning
Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Adaptive reuse of any of the viable Lacy Neighborhood
resources. (Letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley, dated June 4, 2010.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. The concept of “adaptive reuse” generally refers to the process of converting a
structure traditionally occupied by one use, such as a house used for residential purposes, to
another use, such as house converted to an office. All Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy
Neighborhood were purchased using 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment Agency funding. This
funding source is restricted in its use and may only be used to support projects which result in the
production of affordable housing as defined by State law. (Health and Safety Code § 33334.2 ).
Were the Agency to use these funds for any purposes not relating to increasing, improving, and
preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable
housing cost, the Redevelopment Agency would be required to make a finding that there is no
longer a need in the community to provide such housing. The Agency has not made and cannot
make such a finding in light of the demonstrated need for such housing. On the contrary, the
City’s recently adopted and certified Housing Element details the need for affordable housing the
community at all levels of affordability. The scenarios analyzed in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 all were
based on the restriction of this funding source to provide for affordable housing and, as such,
provided for continued use of the identified structures for residential purposes, specifically for
affordable housing. Adaptive reuse alternatives are found to be legally infeasible due to this
funding restriction. Adaptive reuse would result in nonresidential development, which is also
contrary to both the City and Agency’s policy interest in promoting affordable housing in this
merged Project Area. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957;
City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401.) Please also refer to the Findings on
Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources in the Findings of Fact
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a further discussion.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-21
Considerations
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
¦
Proposed Mitigation Measure. Revise mitigation measure MM4.6-1 to require future
th
development projects to adhere to “[…] the 4 term Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit for
the Santa Ana Region of Orange County as adopted on May 11, 2009.” (Letter from Orange
County Public Works, dated June 3, 2010, comment OCPW-3.)
Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this mitigation measure infeasible.
Rationale. Because the majority of the future development of the Transit Zoning Code may occur
years in the future, requiring development projects to comply with “current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements” ensures compliance with the most up-to-
date standards over a long period of time, since the requirements that are in effect today may differ
in the future. Writing the mitigation measure in this way places the responsibility of complying
with NPDES regulations on future project proponents, regardless of how the regulations change
over time. Therefore, the City will adopt mitigation measure MM4.6-1 as set forth in the EIR.
Finding Related to Clarifications and Updates to the EIR in Response to Comments
Received Since the Planning Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010
Finding. Responses to all written and oral comments on the EIR received since the Planning
Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010, merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the EIR and
do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b).
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
3-22
Considerations
CHAPTER 4Findings on the Settlement Agreement
and the Revised Station District
Project
4.1INTRODUCTION
As discussed above, the unincorporated association “Friends of the Lacy Historic Neighborhood” filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the City and Agency challenging the certification of the EIR and
approval of the TZC, the Station District Project and the related purchase and demolition of certain
structures in the Lacy Neighborhood in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010-00388033-
CU-WM-CXC (the “Litigation”). The parties to the litigation entered into a Settlement Agreement to
resolve and settle all claims related to the Litigation. The Settlement Agreement relates to and affects the
development of the Station District/Developer Project.
This chapter describes the primary differences between the Station District Project as previously
approved and the Station District Project as modified. It also describes the other terms of the Settlement
Agreement. Finally, this chapter includes findings that the Settlement Agreement does not result in any
substantial changes to the Station District Project or the circumstances under which the Station District
Project is undertaken that would require any major revisions in the Final EIR, and there is no new
information with respect to the Project that would require such revisions. Additionally, no other terms
of the Settlement Agreement would require revisions to the Final EIR or further environmental analysis
because the terms do not involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of an impact, and/or have no potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the
environment, and/or are otherwise exempt from CEQA.
4.2PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STATION DISTRICT PROJECT
The Station District Project approved by the City and Agency in June 2010 proposed to construct 112
rental units and 32 for sale units. Construction of these units was proposed to occur on 43 Agency-
owned parcels in the Lacy Neighborhood. This construction would have resulted in the demolition of as
many as eighteen (18) residential properties, some of which were determined in the Final EIR to be
potentially significant historical resources and one of which is listed on the Santa Ana Register of
Historical Properties (SARHP). (See Final EIR, Section 4.4.)
4.3REVISED STATION DISTRICT PROJECT
The Station District Project, as revised, would result in demolition of eight (8) residential properties and
would rehabilitate ten (10) residential properties, including the SARHP-listed property (501 E. Fifth
Street), all of which would be offered as rental units to very low and extremely low income tenants. In
total, the Revised Station District Project would construct 99 rental units and 24 for sale units. Though
Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-1
Chapter 4 Findings on the Settlement Agreement and the Revised Station District Project
the mix of rental and for sale units has been slightly altered, construction would occur on the same lots as
the previously approved Station District Project.
Table 4-1 Properties to Be Rehabilitated/Demolished Under the Revised Station
District Project
Address APN Action Under Revised Station District Project
501 -501 1/2 E. 5th Street 398-332-09 Rehabilate in Place
507 Mortimer 398-332-09 Rehabilate in Place
505 E. 5th Street 398-332-08 Rehabilate in Place
505 N. Minter Street 398-333-09 Demolish
507 N. Minter Street 398-333-09 Rehabilate in Place
601-603 E. 5th Street 398-311-19 Rehabilate in Place
610-612 E. 5th Street 398-338-03 Relocate to 511 E. 5th St.
615-617 E. 5th Street 398-333-06 Rehabilate in Place
621 E. 5th Street 398-333-05 Rehabilate in Place
508-510 N. Porter St. 398-333-05 Demolish
620 E. 5th Street 398-338-05 Demolish
712 E. 5th Street 398-337-03 Rehabilate in Place
617 E. 6th Street 398-311-08 Demolish
613 E. 6th Street 398-311-07 Relocate to 602 E. 6th St.
615 A & B E. 6th Street 398-311-07 Demolish
609 E. 6th Street 398-311-06 Demolish
623 N. Garfield Street 398-313-04 Demolish
611 N. Minter Street 398-311-01 Demolish
4.4OTHER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS
Under the Settlement Agreement, the City and/or the Agency will take the following actions:
?
Historic Survey. The City will retain a cultural resource professional who meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History to conduct a survey
to determine the historic status and eligibility for listing on either the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) or the SARHP of all residential properties within the Lacy
Neighborhood with a construction date prior to 1961 that have not been surveyed within five (5)
years of the commencement of the survey.
?
Lacy Neighborhood Housing Fund. The Agency will establish a $200,000 residential housing
fund to encourage homeowners in the Lacy Neighborhood to re-invest in the exterior of their
properties. The fund will provide loans of up to $25,000. In addition, funds may be used for
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
4-2
Considerations
Chapter 4 Findings on the Settlement Agreement and the Revised Station District Project
payment of fees associated with nomination of homes to the CRHR or SARHP and the Mills Act
Property Tax Abatement Program.
?
Architectural Salvage. The Agency will retain a qualified contractor to conduct salvage prior to
demolition of any residential structures that will be demolished as part of the Revised Station
District Project.
?
Miscellaneous. The Agency will also make one property, 611 Minter Court, available for sale and
relocation prior to its demolition, and for eighteen (18) months, the Agency will notify petitioners
“Friends of Lacy” of the Agency’s intended demolition of properties for redevelopment in the
Lacy Neighborhood, other than those properties that would be demolished pursuant to the
Revised Station District Project.
4.5FINDING ON REVISED STATION DISTRICT PROJECT
Finding. The City hereby finds that the Station District Project, as revised, is feasible and will not result
in any substantial changes to the Station District Project or the circumstances under which the Station
District Project is undertaken that would require any major revisions in the Final EIR, and there is no
new information with respect to the Project that would require such revisions.
Rationale. The revisions to the Station District Project do not involve any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Specifically, the primary change in the project is the reduction in the number of residential properties that
will be demolished, from as many as eighteen (18) under the previously approved project to 8 under the
Revised Station District Project. This change reduces the number of demolitions by ten (10) and,
therefore, reduces the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to historical resources. There are no
other changes to the project that have any potential to result in any increased direct, indirect or
cumulative environmental impacts.
4.6FINDINGS ON OTHER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS
Finding. The City hereby finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement do not require revisions to
the Final EIR or further environmental analysis because the terms do not involve new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, and/or have no potential to
result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and/or are otherwise exempt from
CEQA.
Rationale. The preparation of an historic survey is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines §
15306, which exempts “information collection.” Because the Historic Survey would simply evaluate
existing resources and would not result in any disturbance of environmental resources, it is exempt from
CEQA review. Establishment of the Lacy Neighborhood Housing Fund is similarly exempt from
CEQA because any improvements that would result from use of the fund would consist of repair,
maintenance or minor alterations of private structures involving negligible or no expansion of the
existing use. Therefore, establishment of the fund is exempt under CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing
Facilities). Further, any rehabilitation of homes consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
4-3
Considerations
Chapter 4 Findings on the Settlement Agreement and the Revised Station District Project
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings would also be exempt under CEQA Guidelines § 15331. The salvage
program is also exempt under CEQA because it is a component of the ongoing salvage process with the
Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society, which began in 2004, and under the Existing Facilities
exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15301) as it involves only minor exterior and interior alterations. All
other provisions of the Settlement Agreement have no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect
physical change on the environment and, therefore, are not “projects” as that term is defined in CEQA
Guidelines § 15378. Accordingly, they are covered by “the general rule that CEQA only applies to
projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” (See CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
4.7OTHER RELATED FINDINGS
The City hereby finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted on June 7, 2010 in
connection with approval of the Transit Zoning Code and the Station District Project remains in effect.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
4-4
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
CHAPTER 5Statement of Overriding
Considerations
5.1INTRODUCTION
Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks
when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall
state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other
information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in
the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This
statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section
15091.
This Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the anticipated economic, social, and other
benefits or other considerations of the Proposed Project to support the decision to proceed with the
project even though not all of the identified impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
5.2UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
Even with mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the project, the following significant impacts are
unavoidable because no feasible mitigation is available to further reduce the impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impacts
listed below.
Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-5 Long-term cumulative development occurring pursuant to the Transit Zoning
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) would result in a substantial increase in
shade/shadows over sensitive uses.
Cumulative As noted in the discussion for Impact 4.1-5, new sources of increased shade
would likely result from new development under the proposed Transit Zoning
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B). Since there is typically no feasible mitigation
available to reduce to less than significant or eliminate shading impacts, significant
and unavoidable shading impacts would result from the proposed Transit Zoning
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-5
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Code (SD 84A and SD 84B). Cumulative development of additional medium- and
high-rise buildings would lead to additional shade impacts to various shade-
sensitive uses throughout the City. Therefore, cumulative shading impacts from
future projects in the Transit Village (TV) and Downtown (DT) Zones
constructed pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code would make a considerable
contribution to this significant cumulative impact.
Air Quality
Impact 4.2-5 Construction activities associated with the construction of individual projects
within the Transit Zoning Code area, including the Developer project, would
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation for criteria
air pollutants.
Impact 4.2-6 Operation of the proposed project would exceed South Coast Air Quality
Management District standards for VOC, NO, CO, and PMand would result
X10
in a projected air quality violation.
Impact 4.2-7 Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
proposed project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.
Cumulative As the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, CO, NO, PM, and PM,
X102.5
cumulative development would violate an air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, this is considered to be a
significant cumulative impact within the Basin. Construction under the proposed
project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant
impact. In addition, as discussed in Impact 4.2-6, operation at full buildout of the
proposed project would result in quantities of air emissions that exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NO, CO, and PM, and would create a
X10
cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant impact.
Cultural
Impact 4.4-3 The adoption of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) would result in
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Cumulative The cumulative analysis for impacts on cultural and paleontological resources
considers a broad regional system of which the resources are a part. The
cumulative context for the cultural and paleontological resources analysis is
Orange County as a whole. While the project impact analysis for cultural
resources necessarily includes separate analyses for historic-period resources and
archaeological resources, the cumulative analysis combines these resources into a
single, non-renewable resource base and considers the additive effect of project-
specific impacts to significant regional impacts on cultural resources. Because all
cultural resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, all
adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Federal,
state, and local laws protect cultural resources in most instances. Even so, it is not
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-6
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
always feasible to protect cultural resources, particularly when preservation in
place would frustrate implementation of projects. For this reason, the cumulative
effects of development in the Orange County region are considered significant.
However, because it is currently infeasible to determine whether future
development under the proposed Transit Zoning Code would result in demolition
or removal of historical resources within the project boundaries, the project’s
incremental contribution to these cumulative effects would be cumulatively
considerable (i.e., the project would contribute to the loss of historical resources
in Orange County).
Noise
Impact 4.8-8 Operation of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA) rail line
would potentially expose noise-sensitive land uses located within the Transit
Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area to noise levels that exceed the standards
established by the City of Santa Ana General Plan.
Impact 4.8-9 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate or
expose persons or structures to excessive ground borne vibration.
Cumulative Construction of individual projects pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code would
produce temporary vibration impacts. As discussed in Impact 4.8-9, the
construction vibration impact would be significant and unavoidable. As individual
development projects under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area
may be constructed concurrently with each other or other related projects, it is
possible that intense construction from two or more projects would
simultaneously occur at distances of 50 feet or less from existing nearby
receptors. Therefore, vibration from future development would potentially
combine with construction vibration of other projects to result in a potentially
significant cumulative impact.
Cumulative The proposed project is located within close proximity to the Southern California
Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA) rail line. Sensitive receptors, including
residential uses with exterior uses such as communal areas consisting of pocket
parks or pedestrian walkways and private balconies, may or may not be shielded
from noise generated by railroad operations. As a result, noise levels within these
areas may exceed the 65 dBA CNEL “Desirable Maximum” standard.
Transportation
Impact 4.11-9 Long-term cumulative development under implementation of the Transit Zoning
Code would result in impacts related to freeway ramps in the vicinity of the
Transit Zoning Code area.
Cumulative As identified in Impact 4.11-8, because implementation of the proposed project
would contribute to significant impacts at the study area intersections, and
because implementation of the potential improvement measures cannot be
guaranteed, the long-term cumulative development pursuant to the Transit
Zoning Code would have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-7
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Climate Change
Impact4.13-1 Long-term cumulative development pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code at full
build-out would result in significant localized air quality impacts for operational
level emissions. As a whole, this impact is significant for operational emissions
due to the size of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area.
Impact 4.13-2 Long-term cumulative development pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code at full
build-out has the potential to conflict with AB 32. The Project as a whole is
significant for operational emissions due to the size of the Transit Zoning Code
(SD 84A and SD 84B) area.
Short-Term Impacts
?
Of the sixteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the Proposed Project and
associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, four would be classified as short-term. These short-
term impacts are related to construction activities and their temporary effect on air quality and
groundborne vibration. Once the various construction projects are complete, these impacts would no
longer exist.
Long-Term Impacts
?
Of the sixteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the Proposed Project and
associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, twelve of the aforementioned impacts are considered
long-term.
5.3OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City hereby finds that economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. In making this finding, the City has
balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable significant impacts and has indicated its
willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Santa Ana City Council finds that the following benefits
of the Project warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding its significant, unavoidable environmental
impacts.
The project objectives of the Transit Zoning Code component of the Project are to:
¦
Provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods
¦
Provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing
¦
Allow for the reuse of existing structures
¦
Allow the development of the Agency properties
¦
Provide a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition
of new transit infrastructure
¦
Preserve and reinforce the existing character and pedestrian nature of the City by strengthening
urban form through improved development and design standards
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-8
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
¦
Encourage alternative modes of transportation, including the rail system that connects San Diego
to Los Angeles
The objectives of the Developer Proposal component of the Project for the Agency-owned properties
are to:
¦
Redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties
¦
Provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals
established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged
Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan
¦
Enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with
the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code
and that support future transit planning
¦
Eliminate blight
¦
Provide additional public open space and facilitate joint use arrangement with SAUSD for a new
community center
¦
Provide an economically viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties
Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected as infeasible alternatives to the Project
discussed above, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the
Project against the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, the City hereby finds that its benefits
outweigh and override its significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. Each benefit set
forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of
the other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact.
Project Benefits
?
a. The Transit Zoning Code component of the Project provides a framework for the development of
compact, transit-oriented development that contains a mix of residential, commercial and
professional uses in order to address the City’s and the region’s goals of providing sites for housing
in already urbanized locations that are adjacent to transit, thereby reducing vehicle trips and related
greenhouse gas emissions, as well as stimulating investment in underutilized land, and improving
the jobs/housing balance within the City. According to a study published by the Southern
California Association of Governments entitled “The New Economy and the Jobs/Housing
Balance in Southern California,” the Los Angeles and Orange Counties regions have a higher
proportion of jobs to housing than do those areas in the Inland Empire. Due to a lack of readily
available land for new housing construction in these jobs-rich areas, workers are required to drive
farther and farther distances in order to find affordable housing. A situation that exacerbates this
lack of available land for new housing is the over-zoning of land for commercial uses, which cities
have historically done in order to increase sales tax revenues following the adoption of Proposition
13 in 1978. The Transit Zoning Code would re-zone property, either through standard zoning
tools or through overlay zones, that was not historically zoned for residential use, thereby
increasing the land available for residential development and providing more housing in an already
urbanized, jobs-rich environment (The New Economy and the Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern
California, Southern California Association of Governments, April 2001. Los Angeles, CA.)
b. The Transit Zoning Code area is ideally located for increased growth by its proximity to major
transit systems and its adjacency to existing residential communities and an established gridded
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-9
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
street network. The Transit Zoning Code supports the existing transportation network, and creates
amenity-enriched connections between the Government Center and Rail Station, and improves
area-wide walkability.
c. The Transit Zoning Code allows land uses and land densities that will provide transit-supportive
development necessary to generate adequate ridership on the proposed Santa Ana Fixed Guideway
transit system which will serve Santa Ana Regional Transit Center (“SARTC”).
d. The Transit Zoning Code provides zoning which would allow for the integration of new infill
development into existing neighborhoods.
e. The Project is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Southern
California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the
Connections (RTP), and SCAG’s 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan: Helping Communities Achieve a
Sustainable Future (RCP) land use goals. The RTP’s goals include identifying strategic areas for infill,
pedestrian friendly environments, and focusing housing and employment growth in transit-
accessible locations through transit-oriented developments (EIR, Section 4.7 [Land Use], and RTP,
pp. 90-91). The RCP includes similar strategies, such as establishment of mixed-use clusters and
other transit oriented development around transit stations and along transit corridors (RCP, pp.
15-17).
f. Development of the Transit Zoning Code will result in fewer traffic impacts than the No
Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Table 5-3). This result is consistent with and
furthers the implementation strategies detailed in the California Resources Board Climate Change
Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan). AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop
a Scoping Plan with actions to reach the target. The Scoping Plan’s proposed strategies for local
governments include a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measure of “infill, affordable and transit-
oriented housing development and the land use changes necessary to increase such development.”
(Scoping Plan, Vol. 1, C-76.)
g. The Transit Zoning Code plays a critical role in achieving targets under SB 375, California’s
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. The ARB Scoping Plan cites the key role of
SB 375 in implementing AB 32, noting SB 375 “reflects the importance of achieving significant
additional reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from changed land use patterns and improved
transportation to help achieve the goals of AB 32.” (Scoping Plan, p. 47.) The role of local
governments is also recognized in reaching SB 375 targets. “Local Governments have the ability to
directly influence both the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments in a
way that reduces greenhouse gases associated with vehicle travel, as well as energy, water, and
waste. . . . Enhanced public transit service combined with incentives for land use development that
provides a better market for public transit will play an important role in helping to reach regional
targets.” (Scoping Plan, p. 48.) The AB 32 implementation strategy for SB 375 includes the following
measure: “Enhanced public transit service combined with incentives for land use development that
provides a better market for public transit will play an important role in helping to reach regional
targets.” (Scoping Plan, p. 48.)
h. The City of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to accommodate
families. As stated in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family housing
comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only 13% of multiple family and single-family
rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families who rent have
five or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units. The
Developer Project contains 77 two-bedroom units and 68 three-bedroom units. In addition, the
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-10
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mercy House project will provide one three-bedroom and five two-bedroom units. These units are
appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana’s identified demographic needs.
i. The City currently suffers from a shortage of affordable housing. As set forth in the City’s certified
Housing Element (2006-2014), the City of Santa Ana’s share of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for 2006-2014 3,393 units of new residential construction, 694 of which are to
be affordable to very low income households, 574 of which are to be affordable to low income
households, and 665 to be affordable to moderate income households (EIR, Section 4.9). State law
mandates that in order to satisfy its RHNA requirement the City create opportunities for new
housing, particularly affordable housing, through the application of zoning which allows for
increased density. The existing maximum density allowed under the current zoning within the area
covered by the Transit Zoning Code is 15 dwelling units per acre, though there are projects within
the area that were constructed prior to the establishment of the current zoning that exceed the 15
dwelling units per acre. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
requires that cities provide zoning that allows for residential construction at a minimum density of
30 dwelling units per acre in order to meet the density criteria that HCD has established as being
supportive of affordable housing production. The City’s Housing Element identified the
Renaissance Specific Plan area, which shares the same geographic boundary as the Transit Zoning
Code area, as one that has the potential to provide a new source of residential in-fill development
and, as such, was used to partially satisfy the City’s RHNA requirement. During the planning
period covered by the Housing Element (2006-2014) it is estimated that the City could anticipate
up to 238 units of new residential development. Throughout the life of the Transit Zoning Code (a
planning horizon of 20 to 30 years) it is estimated that there could be as many as 4,075 new
residential units, a portion of which could be expected to meet affordability requirements. The
Project implements the Housing Element and provides the zoning necessary to stimulate new
affordable housing production.
j. The Developer Project component of the Project and the Mercy House project (and/or another
form of affordable housing or other use on the site of the Mercy House project) will provide up to
220 new residential units. As currently designed these projects will provide approximately 122
rental units affordable to those meeting the Orange County criteria for Low, Very-Low and
Extremely Low Income, three manager’s units for the rental projects, approximately 24 for-sale
units, up to five of which will be affordable to those meeting the Orange County criteria for
Moderate Income, and the balance of which will be market-rate for-sale units. This creates a
combined total of approximately 149 new residential units. Of these, approximately 127 will be
deed-restricted affordable housing and will be counted towards the City’s RHNA requirement.
These 127 affordable units represent 53% of all new units estimated to be constructed within the
2006-2014 planning horizon of the Housing Element for the Transit Zoning Code area and
represent 10% of the City’s total RHNA requirement for Very Low and Low Income housing
(1,268 units – City of Santa Ana Housing Element 2006-2014 Table 4). This is a significant
contribution to meeting both the State mandated requirements for affordable housing production,
as well as meeting a real need for the residents of Santa Ana. In addition, the Mercy House project
(11 of the 127 previously described units) meets the City’s criteria for Special Needs housing, also
identified as a need in the Housing Element. Failure to approve the Developer Project and the
Mercy House project will eliminate an important new source of affordable housing and special
needs housing.
k. The Project furthers the City’s policy of “maximiz[ing] affordable housing on Agency-owned
properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels.” (See Santa
Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) It meets the City’s policy to “encourage the
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-11
Considerations
Chapter 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, including a commitment
to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers” (Policy
HE-2.3) and its policy to “facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes
of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multi-use housing,
transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing” (Policy HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing
Element [2006-2014].) The Transit Zoning Code component of the Project accomplishes this by
creating zoning and affordable housing incentives that supports the development of new
affordable housing by allowing for densities which provide the economies of scale necessary to
allow for below-market construction. The Transit Zoning Code also provides for a wide variety of
housing types which includes everything from single-family detached houses to high-rise mixed-use
development. By allowing for a mixture of uses both horizontally on single properties, and
vertically within single buildings, the Transit Zoning Code provides opportunities for a diverse mix
of housing in furtherance of the City’s Housing Element. The Developer Project and the Mercy
House component of the Project accomplish this by providing 125 new rental units and 24 new
for-sale units. Of these units, approximately 127 will be deed restricted to ensure their long-term
affordability. This new housing is comprised of a variety of product types including courtyard
housing, townhomes and row houses in furtherance of the provisions of the Housing Element and
the Transit Zoning Code.
l. The Transit Zoning Code provides for a planning and zoning framework to allow for the
redevelopment of the Agency-owned properties, thereby eliminating blight and providing for new
property tax generation. The Agency-properties are, for the most part, vacant land in the
ownership of a public agency and, as such, do not currently generate any property tax revenue. The
Project will allow for the redevelopment of these properties and their return to economic use. The
adoption of the Transit Zoning Code also allows for the future development of other vacant and
underutilized properties currently in private or public ownership in other parts of the project area.
One such example is the current County of Orange Operations Yard. The Operations Yard
comprises approximately 9.5 acres of underutilized land as the County of Orange continues to
consolidate their fleet and maintenance operations in other facilities. Adoption of the Transit
Zoning Code provides for the zoning framework and environmental analysis necessary to allow
these properties to transition into more economically productive uses and to potentially generate
new property and sales tax revenues. Many areas within the Transit Zoning Code suffer from a
lack of modern infrastructure and are in need of new street and sidewalk improvements. The
additional tax revenues generated by new development within the Transit Zoning Code area will
allow for reinvestment in public infrastructure and new investment that will stimulate the economy
of this area.
m. The Project furthers the Project Objectives set forth above, incorporated in full by this reference.
Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
5-12
Considerations