Laserfiche WebLink
highways. The GPU would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but <br />adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes. <br />(b) Biological Resources: Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat <br />or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and <br />jurisdictional waterways. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City <br />is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances <br />protecting biological resources. <br />(c) Cultural Resources: The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing <br />and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are <br />uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and <br />Safety Code Section 7050.5. <br />(d) Energy: Implementation of proposed policies under the GPU, in conjunction with and <br />complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with <br />growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the <br />GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy <br />efficiency. <br />(e) Geology and Soils: The plan area's location and underlying geology make it likely to <br />experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary <br />hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP <br />Zoning Act in the plan area. Additionally, all structures that would be constructed in <br />accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as <br />found in the latest CBC. Most of the plan area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; <br />however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with <br />current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with <br />respect to slope stability, as the plan area is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils <br />conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory <br />compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP <br />and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant <br />level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and <br />requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would <br />reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is <br />generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable <br />groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that <br />impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require <br />connection to the City's sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the <br />installation of septic tanks. <br />(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, <br />or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. <br />Santa Ana General Plan Update <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement <br />Of Overriding Considerations -22- <br />October 2021 <br />